That’s not intended to be inflammatory; just trying to keep the subject line short and to the point.
Within the past two days, the US miltary has been alleged to:
Attack a convoy of Russian diplomats (including the Ambassador to Iraq) and journalists that was evacuating Baghdad, wounding at least five; the Russians insist that US troops did the shooting, despite early denials by CENTCOM
Hit the Baghdad offices of Abu Dhabi TV with gunfire, despite the building being draped with huge banners announcing, in English, that it was being used by the network (according to a reporter interviewed this morning on Amy Goodman’s radio show; also, a live camera that had been in operation for several weeks and used by networks worldwide apparently was machine-gunned in the same attack)
Fire at least one tank shell into Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel in response to claimed “sniper fire” from several fllors of the hotel, according to CENTCOM; two journalists killed and several injured; most reports state that only journalists were staying there
Attack another Baghdad hotel also containing journalists; CNN this morning broadcast audio of trapped journalists attempting to contact the International Red Cross for help.
This is not to minimize the trauma to civilians in this conflict, which is certainly a greater issue, but the fact that journalists were directly involved in most of these incidents raises their profile considerably.
The questions for debate are a) is this more of the “fog of war” or is the US military, for some reason, deliberately targeting non-embedded journalists and diplomats of countries perceived as not supporting the action in Iraq? b) What overall effect are these incidents likely to have on world opinion of the war effort? c ) If not deliberate, can and should the military modify its rules of engagement to reduce the likelihood of these incidents occuring?
When the journalists can take live pictures of a tank battle in Baghdad from their hotel (like they had on CNN last night), it seems clear to me that the risk to them becomes much greater.
—But if the Iraqi state runs propaganda, then it is a legit targit.—
Under the Geneva conventions? You sure about that?
But then, we may not have signed that paricular clause (though we didn’t sign the perfidy clause either, but we seem ready to try people under that in our own military tribunals: http://www.msnbc.com/news/896991.asp?0dm=C16PN )
No idea what you mean, since I’ve not yet seen any stories contending that the attack never happened, or that anyone (other than CENTCOM) that the fire was from American forces. The Russians present seemed quite certain that they were fired on by Americans in all the reports I’ve seen.
Not sure what you mean by “OUR journalists”. Journalists of public (i.e. not state-run) news agencies, at least theoretically, are neutral obervers. They are neither “ours” nor “theirs”.
In any event, it is well-known that the Iraqi regime has imprisoned journalists sent to cover events in Baghdad, and that two ‘embedded’ journalists were killed in the past few days by Iraqi fire. OTOH, the imprisoned journalists were released, and the two embedded journalists were part of a military unit engaged in combat; a slightly different situation than sitting in a hotel room.
I’m sure you didn’t mean it sound this way, but you seem to be saying that a hotel full of journalists is a legitimate target because, what, they have attended Iraqi press conferences? Or are you claiming that, say, Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Jazeera are propaganda outlets of the Iraqi state?
Government centers are legit targets. The Iraqi Ministry of Propaganda is thus a legit target. Saddam himself was also a legit target.
And, yes, the US does categorilly deny that their troops were involved or even that they had troops in the immediate area. The Russian are a tad biased, and the Iraqi’s are known to have stockpiled US uniforms, which would be perfect for this type of situation.
Guess the Iraqi forces were wrong. Suggestions that we’re deliberately targeting journalists of any sort are ridiculous. One could make the argument that perhaps we should be more careful, but I don’t buy it, except possibly from a PR standpoint. Civilian casualties happen in a war, and sometimes it’s necessary to incur civilian casualties in order to save more lives in the long run (ie, by doing more damage to the enemy and ending the war more quickly). The lives of journalists are no more sacrosanct than the lives of any other civilian - indeed, they know the risks, and have diliberately chosen to be there. Their deaths are a tragedy to be sure, as are all of the deaths that are occuring in this war. (Okay, check that - I won’t be losing any sleep over the deaths of Saddam and his Feyadeen thugs.) But I don’t think their deaths warrant any special mention by virtue of the fact that they’re journalists.
As for Saddam TV, I definitely consider that to be a legitimate target. This war will go on only so long as those fighting believe they have more to lose by surrendering (ie, death for them and their families at the hands of Saddam) than by fighting. Iraqi propoganda keeps them fighting longer, thus incurring more deaths on both sides. It’s in everybody’s interests for the Iraqi propoganda machine to be brought down. I frankly don’t understand why it took us so long to get rid of it - I’da thunk it would’ve been one of the first round of targets.
Jeff
And the Russina’s even claimed they were driving near a fire fight. You guys need to get off the anti-US bandwagon. I don’t mind constructive critisicm, but to make inuendos like "deliberately targeting non-embedded journalists and diplomats of countries perceived as not supporting the action in Iraq? " without any valid evidence besides a fucking war, it is really hurting your credibility as logical dopers. You take nothing about the circumastance into context. You just knee-jerk on whatever blurlb gives you a woody in your ideals.
Did you know that about 75% of all deaths in the US occur in a health care facility? Damn those evil doctors.
I should point out here that both DrDeth and ElJeffe seem to be conflating Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and, er, Abu Dhabi-based Abu Dhabi TV with Iraqi state-run television. This, of course, is incorrect; these organizations are no more related to ‘Saddam TV’ than CNN is, and their facilities were in separate locations from the the Iraqi Information Ministry.
Oh, and Spite, I’m seeking opinions on the questions I posed in the OP, not “jumping on the anti-US bandwagon”, as you put it. Well, now I’ve heard yours, I guess. Thanks a bunch.
Sorry about my confusion, I had thought they shared offices to some extent. The “neutral” journalists are not a “legit” target, but if they are near one, they take their chances. Iraqi state-run TV, etc is a legit war target.
D’oh! Got me on that one. I read DrDeth’s post, and mistakenly “remembered” someone as having mentioned the US targeting of the Ministry of (Dis)Information. Damned Alzheimers.
Jeff
About the russian incident. There is a version that says the russians might have been trying to carry away some iraqi captured US military hardware for intelligence purposes.
About the other incidents, It’s pretty clear the US is now being less and less squeamish about shooting everything in sight. Winning has become waaaaaay more important than preserving civilian life, nor even journalists’ life.
