Urban replied on May 23:
David, Since the summer of
2006, the US led coalition in Iraq has defined Baghdad as the 'centre
of gravity' of its operations. The primary emphasis on trying to
prevent sectarian murder has been evident since the October 2006
Baghdad Security Plan was unveiled and has been reiterated in many
official statements since then, including those early in 2007
announcing the surge. I tell you this because it should be clear that
this shift in the pattern of Coalition operations is an explicit
feature of policy, rather than a matter of your opinion versus mine.
Now
when it comes to my personal reporting on 14th May, I am clear, on the
basis of spending time on operations with the soldiers in Dura, that
they sincerely believed their mission to be one of trying to help local
people defeat sectarian murder squads as well as turning them against
'al-Qaeda in Iraq' elements in the sunni community. Of course US forces
in Iraq have other tasks too, including hunting the al-Qaeda leadership
or countering Iranian influence. We report on these other missions as
well. On this latest trip, it was my duty to investigate the working on
the ground of that surge and security plan - since US and Iraqi
auithorities all agree that this is their main security priority of the
moment.
I know from some of the other comment I have received
that embedded coverage with the US Army rankles with many medialens
users. I think David that you in particular are experienced enough in
this story to know that the 14th May film was part of a spectrum of
Newsnight coverage that includes Salaam Pax's stories, the 'inside Sadr
city' report of 15th May, and Amina al-Thahabi's excellent report on
Iraq women broadcast on 3rd April. Allegations of US crimes or
atrocities such as Haditha have also had extensive coverage on the
programme. The idea that we should report on the current state of Iraq
without getting the perspective of American soldiers strikes me as
absurd.
All the best
Mark
We responded on May 30:
Dear Mark
Many thanks for your reply, and apologies for my delay in responding.
Your
first paragraph is really remarkable and very revealing. You say that
the coalition has "defined Baghdad as the 'centre of gravity' of its
operations", that the "primary emphasis on trying to prevent sectarian
murder" has been "reiterated in many official statements" and is "an
explicit feature of policy". Do you really think it's reasonable to
present the official version of events as so obviously credible and
truthful? Isn't the one blindingly obvious lesson we've learned over
the past four years been that official statements, emphases, plans and
definitions are often complete distortions designed to lead us away
from the truth?
You say the "primary emphasis" has been
"evident" since October 2006, but in fact very little of what is
happening has been evident to anyone outside Iraq since 2003. For
example, who would guess from "official statements" and embedded
journalistic reporting that US forces are in the habit of treating
Iraqis as "untermenschen", as British officers have observed? There was
no sense of that reality in your report. But why not? Why should an
independent journalist in a free society not communicate the murderous
and in fact criminal truth of this appalling occupation?
You write:
"Now
when it comes to my personal reporting on 14th May, I am clear, on the
basis of spending time on operations with the soldiers in Dura, that
they sincerely believed their mission to be one of trying to help local
people defeat sectarian murder squads as well as turning them against
'al-Qaeda in Iraq' elements in the sunni community."
I can well
believe this is the case. The soldiers you interviewed seemed likable,
decent people, and no doubt sincerely believe they are there to help
the Iraqis. But as we pointed out in our alert, that is not the whole
story. The US superpower is +not+ just in Iraq to keep the peace,
regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to
establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik
in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the
motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period and a
mountain of evidence since 2003.
Other goals flow from this
basic aim - the US is intent on achieving the necessary level of
control, or influence, at minimum cost to itself, not least because
bodybags cost votes. This means the use of high-tech firepower,
particularly airpower - with obviously devastating implications for the
Iraqi civilian population (the air war is one aspect of the disaster
that goes almost completely unreported). In a report obtained by the
Washington Post last month, Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell commented on
the US approach:
"Statements made by the chain of command during
interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi
civilian lives are not as important as US lives, their deaths are just
the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job
done' no matter what it takes." (Josh White, 'Report On Haditha
Condemns Marines; Signs of Misconduct Were Ignored, U.S. General Says,'
Washington Post, April 21, 2007)
Bargewell added:
"All
levels of command tended to view civilian casualties, even in
significant numbers, as routine and as the natural and intended result
of insurgent tactics."
It follows from the determination to
achieve victory at extreme cost to the Iraqis, that the 'coalition'
needs to keep these realities from domestic audiences that will not
support the mass killing of civilians for power and profit. A
benevolent, humanitarian motive has to be presented as the guiding
concern.
You also write:
"Of course US forces in Iraq have other tasks too, including hunting the al-Qaeda leadership or countering Iranian influence."
I
guess that was your response to my question: "... isn't it unarguable
that the Americans are +not+ merely 'here to help', to keep the peace -
they are in Iraq to wage war on an insurgency?"
You seem
unwilling even to recognise that the US is waging a major war against
an Iraqi nationalist armed opposition - why instead emphasise al Qaeda
when it's role was played down in the Iraq Study Group Report?:
"Most
attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency. The
insurgency comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime,
disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals. It has significant
support within the Sunni Arab community... Al Qaeda is responsible for
a small portion of the violence in Iraq, but that includes some of the
more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, large truck bombs, and attacks
on significant religious or political targets." (
The Iraq Study Group Report, December 6, 2006; )
You
argue, again, that "it was my duty to investigate the working on the
ground of that surge and security plan - since US and Iraqi authorities
all agree that this is their main security priority of the moment".
Again,
you seem to have no awareness that the reality might diverge from
official pronouncements - this appears to be your blind spot.
Best wishes
David
SUGGESTED ACTION
The
goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you
to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to Mark Urban
Email: mark.urban@bbc.co.uk
Write to Peter Barron, editor of Newsnight
Email: peter.barron@bbc.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at
Email: editor@medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070531_exchange_with_bbc.php
The
Media Lens book 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by
David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in
2006. John Pilger described it as "The most important book about
journalism I can remember."
For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts,
please click here:
We are happy to maintain these alerts as a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens:
www.medialens.org/donate
Visit the Media Lens website:
www.medialens.org
Writings 
On May 22, we published a Media Alert, '
Subscribe to this comment's feed
