大象传媒

There must now be a thorough re-appraisal of Britain's foreign and defence policies, of our role in the world, covering everything from the relationship with the United States to the need for a nuclear deterrant, to the conditions under which we commit our armed forces to potential flashpoints.
Britain's reputation among nations is shot through as a result of our tawdry adventure in Iraq.

This letter fills me with pride for the courage of our soldiers and with utter shame for the cowardice of our mendacious politicians.

I find it all too predictable that Newsnight forgot to mention what seems to have prompted the officer to write to them with his personal views in the first place - namely an alert from Media Lens which analysed Mark Urbans reporting from Iraq whilst he was embedded with the US army.

Media Lens subsequently published Mark Urbans response to their alert and then the officers email to Mark Urban (which had been copied to them) last friday

It all makes for a very interesting discussion about the way the war in Iraq is presented to the public by the media. It's a shame that Newsnight missed the opportunity to engage their viewers in this discussion by choosing to focus solely on the armed forces (and then coming to no real conclusion about whether one email is representative of the whole army.)

I am a recently retired Infantry Captain, and left the army through personal choice.

I have heard a few young officers venting their displeasure (as i did privately when i was young) i do have to say that with hindsight, Fear and Dread are part of a soldiers job, if there was no fear we as a nation would have no need for an Army, it is not nice but it is the job we do or have done.

During the invasion in 2003 the Shia people actively assisted the British Army by rebelling against the Saddam regime in Maysaan and Wassit provinces, and were overjoyed at the long awaited regime change. To the Iraqi people this was not an unpopular invasion, (it may or may not be all that was promised to the British public but that is for due process to decide).

I at no time undertook acts which I believe to be immoral, at all times I operated within strict rules of engagement, purely to defend myself and my men at times of necessity. I had free choice to conduct my operational activities and subsequent actions on the ground in which ever fashion I felt appropriate. An individual is responsible for his own actions and if they believe them to be immoral 鈥︹��.. well.

Our role is not to wage war but to provide security in support of reconstruction and reform, this does bring us into continues conflict with insurgents, but it is what we are paid to do.

I say all that not to attack of the above gentleman but to clarify my stance on the subject.

Soldiers are in their nature enthusiastic about new things, their team spirit, drive and loyalty is quite exceptional. This may be contrary to public belief but soldiers enjoy operational deployments and all the challenges they bring. Soldiers however are also human beings and do get exhausted they do get worn out and they do get scared. This operation has been has been going on for quite some time (not as long as Northern Ireland but still some time) and it is perfectly natural for a feeling of stress to set in prior to what you expect to be a traumatic experience. Multiple hostile tours do not help a soldier鈥檚 home life or personal well being, in any operational theatre not just the hot potato that Iraq has become.

I myself have been wounded and do still suffer mental exhaustion, but I do not regret one minute of the nine years I spent on deployments during my military career, I have been touched by the commitment and bravery that soldiers show to one and other during times of duress and would not change anything for the world. I believe that our nation should be proud of our boys who consistently produce results regardless of the cost, pain or stress.

I do regret the fatalities and there is not a day goes by when I don鈥檛 wonder if I could have done anything differently, but war unfortunately brings fatalities, it is not nice, its not pleasant but it was my job.

Im sorry this is not a piece of literary exception but that is not what im famed for.
For the sake of the memory of the boys I left behind I had to tell it like a soldier.

It's really good to see that Newsnight are finally beginning to acknowledge the level of dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq that exists in the army. This report offered a glimpse of the hopeless and desperate situation our government has put our armed forces in. Hopefully now Newsnight will turn to the level of dissatisfaction and despair in British society generally about this catastrophic war.

Iraq is hemorrhaging the lives of hundreds of British soldiers, thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It is also destroying trust in our political system and media institutions. The 大象传媒 and other major broadcasters continue to discuss the war mainly in terms laid down by the British and American governments whose original passionately argued justification for the war has proved to be a tissue of lies.

The justification has now shifted to establishing democracy, fighting terrorist groups (unknown in Iraq before the invasion) and 'preventing sectarian violence'. The one thing all groups are united in is their determination to rid Iraq of occupying forces.

As every Iraqi knows and many people in the west acknowledge, this war was (and still is) primarily about US determination to control world energy supplies. Oil was a dirty word for the mainstream media before the war and is still a dirty word for most journalists today. Yet legislation recently passed guarantees the majority of Iraq's oil revenues to US companies. This is the kind of story Newsnight and other news and current affairs programmes should be investigating and aggressively interviewing politicians about.

The 'story' is not about the detail of tactics and strategy (a huge distraction once the war started). It's about whether we should be in the country at all, whether the leaders of the Labour government needs to face a criminal inquiry and about how further appalling 'adventures' of this kind can be avoided. Iraq is todays Vietnam - a shameful blot on the UK's record and a hard lesson in the imperial folly our leaders are capable of.

More honest investigative reporting of this kind and less constipated party politics will win Newsnight a loyal following from people interested in real news.

I agree wholeheartedly with that Officers comments. My son served out there and returned safely, with nothing but contempt for what the Americans are doing out there. The British Forces are doing a marvellous job but they have been misused by the self seeking, Bush- serving politicians who should be prosecuted for their actions. There is more integrity in one British soldier than all those despicable politicians who are responsible for the immense amount of death and destruction they have wrought on the Iraqi people. Where is the accountability for this heinous act?

Peter Fisher, does your son also have contempt for what the Americans and British did to the Germans during World War II? Any sentiments about Dresden? With attitudes like those of your son', it's a wonder Britain is still an independent nation? Ooops, I forgot, it already surrendered to the EU and to the UN.

Andrew Houseley, cut yourself off from the US and give up your nuclear deterrant...and face Vladimir Putin's threats alone and unarmed....just the way Neville Chamberlain faced Adolf Hitler. When you don't learn the costly lessons of bitter experience, there is only one word for it and you know exactly which one I am referring to.

Dr H Tabar, were sentiments like those expressed in this letter typical of British soldiers over the last 70 years, the UK would have fallen prey to and become a slave in the Nazi or Soviet empire. Fortunately for all Brits, far more courageous souls prevailed.

Captain X, you are right, to not have fear and dread in combat, in the face of possible injury, capture or death would not be normal. Being a courageous hero does not mean not being afraid, it means overcoming fear and fighting anyway. Fortunately both the US and UK have many fine people in their militaries who routinely display outstanding courage which is the only reason we still live in free societies where those who depricate them can take it for granted.

I wonder if Mark Urban and the Newsnight editor understand the concept of psychological warfare. This targets not weapons but minds, both the will of the troops in the field to fight and the will of the population at home to sustain support. Urban's piece was just such a classic piece of psychological warfare and the Islamists couldn't have done it better if the 大象传媒 had actually handed over the programme to their propaganda experts. Based on little more than gossip, one highly contentious e-mail and the stridently antagonistic view of a disaffected ex-serviceman, a case was constructed to project our armed forces as in morale meltdown. The net effect being itself to potentially undermine both the will of the people here and that of our troops in harms way. To do this on the basis of such flimsy evidence is inexcusable. Either the 大象传媒 has been naive in allowing itself to be manipulated or complicit in projecting enemy propaganda. Which of those is it ?

Why does the newsnight page that links to this excerpt from the offices email state, "You can read the full text of the officer's email here"?

This is not true, this is not the full text of the email. Missing from this excerpt is the critism of Newsnight by the officer!

Why does the newsnight page that links to this excerpt from the offices email state, "You can read the full text of the officer's email here"?

This is not true, this is not the full text of the email. Missing from this excerpt is the critism of Newsnight by the officer!

The full email reads:

Dear Mr Urban,

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a
number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US 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." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.

The [inadvertent] dangers of bias of embedded journalism are well known and there is a risk that the 'official line' can be conflated with evidence and facts. Jon Snow graphically demonstrated the effect of this during the initial invasion of Iraq in his programme The True Face of War**. I am conscious that reporting independently, outside of the 'green zone' in Iraq is nigh on impossible, but I would merely request that the 'official line/White House propaganda' be handled with an appropriate degree of scepticism, and be caveated accordingly.

Thank you for your time,

name omitted

Lee Shaver; are you suggesting that Tony Blair was complicit in preparing the "dodgy dossier" which was taken into consideration in the decision to invade Iraq? Is there any reason to think that if Prime Minister Blair believed it, the CIA and President Bush shouldn't have? After the attacks on the US on 9-11, it was only reasonable to fear the worst when hard evidence wasn't available. And it was and still is a very healthy fear, much healthier than the relative complancency which allowed those attacks on 9-11 to happen in the first place. Letting our guard down again would invite something far worse.

i suppose iraqi insurgent target practice is the closest we have come to climbing over the top and slowly walking towards the machine guns?

But are we downhearted? A sing song will put the world to rights.

Pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag,
And smile, smile, smile,[like Tony Blair]
While you鈥檝e a George Bush to light your fag,
Smile, boys, that鈥檚 the style.
What鈥檚 the use of worrying?
It never was worth while, so
Pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag,
And smile, smile, smile.

I have read plenty of accounts by US soldiers that are at odds with Newnight鈥檚 thesis. There are many who feel they are doing a valuable job, are appreciated by the local population and are making progress. (pause for cynical jeers and rants from Bush-lied-kids-died crowd). Perhaps British soldiers are suffering from poor leadership; if your commander thinks you are fighting a futile and illegal American war, how is a young, inexperienced squadie supposed to feel? The media has been instrumental in undermining the moral of our troops. No one went along the beaches of northern France during D-day to poll soldier鈥檚 opinions with a view to retreating if the results were negative. If we retreat at this juncture (and events may well force our hand) then expect Iraq to descend into a Talibanised hellhole. Also expect the 大象传媒 to relegate the story as civilian deaths increase by an order of magnitude (the morality of their 鈥榯roops out now鈥� stance will be embarrassing at this point). Next, expect us to be back within 10 years to neutralise the world鈥檚 new hothouse of international terrorism, but this time with a 鈥榤ore-rubble-less-trouble鈥� strategy that targets Iraq from afar with cruise missiles and high level bombing.

The Iraq project may fail, but morality is not served by abandoning the Iraqi people to the beheaders, mass casualty suicide bombers and head drillers.

Mark, post #14 wrote:

"After the attacks on the US on 9-11, it was only reasonable to fear the worst when hard evidence wasn't available."

Hard evidence was available, you're either ignorant of the facts or trying to re-write history. Even Tony Blair refused to use the charge that Saddam or Iraq was behind 9/11.

Mark continued, "And it was and still is a very healthy fear, much healthier than the relative complancency which allowed those attacks on 9-11 to happen in the first place. Letting our guard down again would invite something far worse."

A healthy fear? Not if you're one of the 650,000+ dead Iraqis it's not. Same goes for the "relative complacency" on 9-11. Why should Iraqi's pay for something that was nothing to do with them? How many more innocents might have to die because of your government's "healthy fear"?

Peter, you've been rumbled. It's as well that Media Lens also received the officer's e-mail, otherwise your readers would be none the wiser about your selective use of this missive.

So then, having read the officer's email, the obvious question is: how did you decide which bits were "pertinent" and which weren't? Why was the story "bad morale" rather than "bad journalism"? From the e-mail, it's clear that the main thrust relates to media coverage of Iraq, in particular the embedded journalism of Mark Urban, which prompted the e-mail in the first place! How did a letter expressing concern about embedded journalism transform into a story about troop morale?

Barking_Mad you're barking mad. Do you have evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs and that Putin was inorrect when he warned President Bush that Russian intelligence had learned that Saddam Hussein was planning to attack the US on America soil? Do you have hard evidence that George Tennet the Director of the CIA appointed by Clinton didn't tell President Bush that Iraq having WMDs was a slam dunk even after Tennet admitted saying it? Bush NEVER said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, no matter how people twist his real words. What he said was that the US feared a nexus would develop between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that while there was no imminent threat of it, he wasn't going to wait any longer allowing it to develop because he feared WMDs from Iraq would fall into Al Qaeda's hands and wind up being used in the US. Yes this was a very healthy fear and the response was 100% correct, the invasion was the right move.

The Lancet's report was one of the most incredible lies I have ever read and it doesn't take a PHD in math to see right through it. According to the Lancet, up to 650,000 Iraqis died as the result of the occupation between the end of organized military resistance in 2003 and the time the report was released in 2006, a period of about 1000 days. That means that on the average 650 people a day would have had to die every single day. That just didn't happen or the bodies would have piled up like cordwood. It was based on a very small sample taking what Iraqis themselves said about those in their families who had died as a given fact without any verification and then exptraoplating it to the entire country. If this is typical of the quality of what the Lancet calls research, it is highly questionable as to whether or not it is even reliable as a medical journal. The real numbers are about a 20th of that. However, even if this were true instead of a big lie, it would hardly matter. Was it worth killing 2 million Germans to save Britain from being defeated and occupied by the Nazi? I'm beginning to wonder that myself. And why should Iraqis pay with their lives for it? Because that is the misfortune those who live under a government pay when their nation goes to war and loses even against their wishes. It's always that way, they were part of a war machine which threatened other people, namely ME.

The Liberal-Left is so defeatist it beggars belief and that is being polite! There are two points to remember, the first being that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal killer and secondly, that everyone on this planet should have the right to live safely in a stable country which explains why the Americans and their Allies are where they are. For a more positive view of the situation it is worth visiting Michael Yon鈥檚 website and the site of eureferendum (surprisingly enough).

#18 Barking_Idiot

Your figure of 650,000+ dead is itself a lie and you probably know this, whereas at least Blair probably believed his WMD assertions. The 650,000 figure is the upper limit of a faulty statistical study published in the Lancet that set the possible range of deaths between something like 30,000 at the lower-end to 650,000 at the upper-end. The methodology behind this study has been thoroughly discredited (see ).

The Iraq Body Count, a much more reliable figure based on actual reported civilian deaths, currently puts this figure at between 60,000 and 70,000. This is of course bad enough, so why inflate it by a factor of 10? Don鈥檛 answer, I know why. And what about the purported 500,000 + children who were supposed to have died due to UN sanctions (or more accurately due to food-for-oil fraud which was only uncovered after Saddam was overthrown)? Was the UN supposed to simply drop the sanctions and let Saddam restart his weapons program?

The media is desperately complicit in undermining whatever slim chance the Iraqis have of retaining a shred of their nascent democracy.

Peter Barron; In any large sampling of people in a population including a conscripted army like the UK's you will find every possible opinion. Why should this one in particular be newsworthy? What does it tell us that we don't already know? Does it reveal some special insight because it is based on priveleged knowledge? I am sure there are many who were in the armed services in Europe during WWII, especially conscripted Americans who felt the US should have stayed out of it and let the Europeans fight it out amongst themselves. And they had good grounds for that sentiment since the US had not been attacked by Germany. I also find it interesting and very disappointing that so many Europeans would deny to Iraqis the liberation from a mass murdering tyrant by American and UK troops which they themselves enjoy today as the result of a similar decision and actions only a few generations ago and for many of these people in nations who have no combatants in Iraq, at no cost to themselves. How can this be defended? That there is an unfortunate insurgency in the aftermath is besides the point. In fact, were the Europeans united in endorsing and joining the invasion and had they sent troops of their own in gratitude for similar sacrifice made for on their behalf in the past, the insurgency might not have happened or it might have been quickly surpressed. Europe refuses to take responsibility for the consequences to its oppositioin and the media has been completely negligent in not pointing it out.

In reply to Mark #20:

Mark, you can witter on all you like but the simple fact is that no evidence has *ever* been produced to show Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission said so. Bush had plenty of opportunity to come out and say Saddam wasn't behind 9/11 but depsite polls showing some 60%+ of the US population thought he was, he never did so. Funny eh? As far as Saddam being a threat, Colin Powell spoke on a trip to Egypt and said,

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

Mark went on, "The Lancet's report was one of the most incredible lies I have ever read and it doesn't take a PHD in math to see right through it. According to the Lancet, up to 650,000 Iraqis died as the result of the occupation between the end of organized military resistance in 2003 and the time the report was released in 2006, a period of about 1000 days. That means that on the average 650 people a day would have had to die every single day. That just didn't happen or the bodies would have piled up like cordwood."

I take it you don't have a PHD in Mathematics, because if you did you wouldn't be spouting ill-informed nonsense and inaccuracies. The same methodology was used in the Congo when Bush and Blair were quite happy to back the reports used by John Hopkins University. The UK Foreign Office themselves looked at the methodology and statistics and said that there was nothing to argue about as far as the methodology went, they advised ministers not to rubbish the report.

To say the real numbers are a 1/20th of that total leaves about 32,000 dead which is clearly nonsense as even Iraqi Body Count with its problematic counting of the dead says the total is 71,000 dead.

Finally you invoke Godwin's Law by mentioning the Nazi's and trying to draw some ignorant and insulting comparison to those poeple who did die fighting a man who was a true danger to Europe and the world. As the US invasion showed, Saddam's army and himself were of threat to no-one outside his borders.

I'll leave the final words on this subject to Tony Blair when asked in the House of Commons what would happen if Saddam 'disarmed':

"I detest his regime, but even now he could save it by complying with the UN鈥檚 demands,"

Alan C wrote: "The Iraq Body Count, a much more reliable figure based on actual reported civilian deaths, currently puts this figure at between 60,000 and 70,000."

Do we have to go through this every time? The IBC figures are NOT accurate by any scientific measurement because they only report deaths reported by certain media sources.

Given the security climate in Iraq the media can not operate freely, many parts of Iraq are completely off limits to reporters, so how can you expect them to get a accurate picture. This is so obvious I find it hard to believe that people can't work this out for themselves.

If they reported accurately 1 in every 5 deaths of their current total of 70,000 dead, then you're still talking about 350,000 dead. That doesn't include the massive rise in infant mortality and people dying due to lack of medicines and drugs.

#26 Peter Barron

Peter; I don鈥檛 know why you would find the officer's letter newsworthy simply because he called the war unwinnable and illegal. What special legal insight does this officer bring to the debate? Calling this war illegal has become a media mantra and the rallying cry of the anti-war brigade. It is not a fact, merely an assertion.

Even if this war is unwinnable that does not mean we have to hand Iraq over to the beheaders, head drillers and mass suicide bombers. What we need to do is stay long enough to allow a democratically elected Iraqi government some chance of defending their own democracy. If we do this then perhaps, just perhaps, in 5, 10 or 30 years, the insurgency will fizzle and democracy will take hold. At this point historians can then look back and say that we won. In any case, the officer is actually flat wrong about the war being unwinnable. Iraq does not yet pose an existential threat to the West. If Iraq becomes Al-Qaedastan, and the threat does become existential, the West can, and may yet decide to crush it. This the West can do. If the anti-war-troops-out-now-Bush-lied-kids-died brigade win the argument then this outcome becomes more likely.

Peter: Why did you consider the officer's criticism of the war itself more "newsworthy", "pertinent" or "relevant" than his criticism of media coverage, which formed the basis of his e-mail? This is not about being "pro" or "anti" Media Lens -- it's a simple and reasonable question, and I sincerely hope you will answer it.

Was the e-mail written by someone working for the Lib Dems? How about the 大象传媒 give us a opposite view from those that think the Iraq adventure is a noble cause.

"Iraq adventure"

"a noble cause"

Ha ha.

NEXT!

#29 Barking Mad

I described the IBC numbers as more reliable, not accurate, being based, as they are, on actual reported death. This would undoubtedly make them conservative. On the other hand the Lancet study is the most extremely pessimistic and contentious statistical data available and it is presented as a fact to make a case for abandoning the Iraqi people to whims of the mass-suicide car bombers, beheaders and head drillers.

The Lancet study is a fine example of what Benjamin Disraeli meant when he commented 鈥淭here are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.鈥�

Here is a link to another report on the implications of the Lancet study.

The report concludes:
鈥淲e would hope that, before accepting such extreme notions, serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling methodology such that violent deaths were vastly over-represented in the sample.鈥�

Here are some statistics from a 2003 report on the effects of sanctions imposed after the first gulf war for those who think that the West should have continued along the UN sanctions path.

An extract indicates the dire consequences of the UN sanctions regime:

鈥淩ichard Garfield, a health specialist at Columbia University, is cited as an expert on these statistics. A year ago, he told us his low estimate of children's deaths was 400,000. If one extrapolates the excess death rate for Iraqi children from a 1992 New England Journal of Medicine report, there would now be more than 800,000 dead Iraqi children.鈥�

Just want to know who will keep the relative 'peace' if US & UK & allies pull of the mess that is Iraq

Or does the 'peace at any price' regardless of what is going on, rhetoric emanating from the usual anti war communes, think:

1) Muslims (Sunni, Shia) Iran & Iraq's regional neighbours are suddenly going to go all virtuous & not continue the massacres they have been indulging in *

2) the international community are going to line up to maintain law & order

* after the all the 1,500 year Sunni v Shia Muslim infracticide has been going on before US nation created & protected power & UK had an Empire*

vikingar

what i see in Iraq and other muslim countries is like a bad dream ,which is in fact real.I wonder whether the Amirecan soldiers in Iraq or the Israelian in palastine have heart or any source of bless,i think they haven't .But the cause of this war in the world is the terorist Bush.And the results of this are just bloods and deads for both iraqian poeple and the Amirecan soldiers.