According to the Guardian, the war in Iraq has been the most dangerous ever for Journalists, and an International Press Freedom group has suggested that Journalists may be being targetted. In this war, there has been a push toward embedding Journalists rather than having full independence. Looking back at earlier articles reminds us that the Pentagon suggested the military would target journalists using the satellite phones as they could not differentiate them from radar, we also see articles discussing how embedding might work in practice. Claims remain that non embedded journalists are being targetted.
The Americans are claiming that they fired on Journalists hotel as they were being fired upon, a few days ago Blunkett verbally attacked the media coverage in Iraq, one could imagine that he would not wish any reporting at all from inside Iraq. He specifically mentioned AlJazeera as a puppet of the regime, this was shortly before AlJazeera's disagreement with Baghdad.
Two Polish Journalists who were taken captive at an Iraqi checkpoint have escaped with the help of an Iraqi teacher.
Meanwhile, Blunkett has said that there may be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what's the betting that if this is the case then this was will have been about something else all along?
Update: Just as this was uploaded, I noticed a story about 'Jubilation in Baghdad' if this is true, then it could be the beginning of the end, though the end could be a long drawn out affair, as this report from Afghanistan shows.
The British have established the first post-war administration in Basra, by appointing a local Sheikh to put together an administrative committee. I can't help feeling that this could be viewed by the locals as installing a 'puppet' of the Invading army - and can only hope that they make it clear very early on that it will be an interim measure, and that the early folks cannot automatically keep 'power'.
The BBC has an analysis of the situation in Basra.
Worryingly, the US have felt it necessary to tell India that the war in Iraq is not a precedent for India to launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. Worrying on two counts:
- Firstly the obvious point that the US felt that India was considering such a move. This could be a disasterous scenario given the history of the Kashmir region and the fact that the two countries are both nuclear powers.
- Secondly, that the US did not consider that a strike on Iraq without UN approval might be used in this way. Consider the end of 2001 and start of 2002. There was widespread international support for the US, at the start of 2003, the US stands alone - something was mishandled badly for that support to wither away in quite the way it did. Exactly what happened is a question for future historians.