Amy Goodman Interviews
Robert Fisk on Democracy
Now
Goodman:
After spending a
month in Iraq, could you
describe your thoughts?
Fisk:
Well, my assumption is
that history has a way
or repeating itself. I
was talking to a very
military Shiite Muslim
from Nashas about only
five days ago and a journalist
was saying to him "do
you realize how historic
these days are?"
and I said to him "do
you realize how history
is repeating itself?"
and he turned to me and
said "yes history
is repeating itself, and
I knew what he meant.
He was referring to the
British invasion or Iraq
in 1917 and Lt. Gen. Sir
Stanley Maude, when we
turned up in Baghdad and
Sir Stanley Maude issued
a document saying "we
have come here not as
conquerors but as liberators
to free you from generations
of tyranny." And
within three years we
were losing hundreds of
men every year in the
guerilla war against the
Iraqis who wanted real
liberation not by us from
the ottomans but by them
from us and I think that's
what's going to happen
with the Americans in
Iraq. I think a war of
liberation will begin
quite soon, which of course
will be first referred
to as a war by terrorists,
by al Qaeda, by remnants
of Saddam's regime, remnants
(remember that word) but
it will be waged particularly
by Shiite Muslims against
the Americans and the
British to get us out
of Iraq and that will
happen. And our dreams
that we can liberate these
people will not be fulfilled
in this scenario.
So what I've been writing
about these past few days
is simply the following.
We claim that we want
to preserve the national
heritage of the Iraqi
people, and yet my own
count of government buildings
burning in Baghdad before
I left was 158, of which
the only buildings protected
by the United States army
and the marines were the
Ministry of Interior,
which has the intelligence
corp of Iraq and the Ministry
of Oil, and I needn't
say anything else about
that. Every other ministry
was burning. Even the
Ministry of Higher Education/Computer
Science was burning. And
in some cases American
marines were sitting on
the wall next to the ministries
watching them burn.
The Computer Science
Minister actually talked
to the marine, Corporal
Tinaha, in fact, I actually
called his fiance to tell
her he was safe and well.
So the Americans have
allowed the entire core
and infrastructure of
the next government of
Iraq to be destroyed,
keeping only the Ministry
of Interior and the Ministry
of Oil. That tells it's
own story. On top of that
I was one of the first
journalists to walk in
to the National Archaeological
Museum and the National
Library of Archives with
all the Ottoman and state
archives and the Koranic
Library of the Ministry
of Religious Endowment
and all were burned. Petrol
was poured on these documentations
and they were all burned
in 3000 degrees of heat.
Ironically, with all
that irony, I managed
to rescue 26 pages of
the Ottoman documentation,
the Ottoman library. Documents
of Ottoman armies, camel
thieves, letters from
the sheriff Hussein of
Mecca to Ali Pasha (Ottoman
ruler of Baghdad) and
when I got to the Jordanian
border the Jordanian customs
authorities stole these
documents from me and
refused to even give me
a receipt for them, a
shattering comment I'm
afraid to say on the Arab
world but particularly
on the American occupation
of Baghdad.
After the Koranic Library
was set on fire I raced
to the headquarters of
the Third Marine Force
Division in Baghdad and
I said there is this massive
Koranic Library on fire
and I said what can you
do? And under the Geneva
Conventions the US Occupation
Forces have a moral, whatever
occupations forces there
are, and they happen to
be American, have a legal
duty to protect documents
and various embassies.
There was a young officer
who got on the radio and
said "there was some
kind of Biblical library
on fire," biblical
for heavens sake, and
I gave him a map of the
exact locations, the collaterals
on the locations to the
marines and nobody went
there, and all the Korans
were burned, Korans going
back to the 16th Century
totally burned.
So, somebody has an interest
in destroying the center
of a new government and
the cultural identity
of Iraq. Now the American
line is these are Saddamite
remnants, remnants of
a Saddam regime. I don't
believe this. If I was
a remnant of a Saddam
regime and say I was given
$20,000 to destroy the
library I would say thank
you very much and when
the regime was gone I
would pocket the money.
I wouldn't go and destroy
the library, I don't need
to, I've got the money.
Somebody or some institution
or some organization today
now is actively setting
out to destroy the cultural
identity of Iraq and the
ministries that form the
core of a new Iraq government.
Who would be behind that
and who would permit it
to happen, and why is
it that the US military,
so famed for its ability
to fight its way across
the Tigris and the Euphrates
river and come into Baghdad
will not act under the
Geneva Convention to protect
these institutions? That
is the question. And I
do not have the answer
to it.
Goodman:
There was a
report today that said
that the US army ignored
warnings from its own
civilian advisors that
could have prevented the
looting of Baghdad's National
Museum-- this is from
the London Observer. It
said that the Office of
the Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance
set up to supervise reconstruction
identified the museum
as a prime target for
looters in a memo to army
commanders a month ago.
The memo said it should
be the second priority
for the army after securing
the national bank. General
Jay Garner, who's taking
over, is said to be livid.
One angry reconstruction
official told the Observer
"we ask for just
a few soldiers at each
building or if they feared
snipers then at least
one or two tanks. The
tanks were doing nothing
once they got inside the
city, yet the generals
refused to deploy them.
Fisk:
Yeah, well the Observer
is always quite a bit
late on the story. There
was a website set up between
American archaeologists
and the Pentagon many
weeks ago listing those
areas of vital national
heritage to Iraq which
might be looted, damaged,
stormed, burned. The museum
was on that list. The
museum, I have seen physically
marked on the satellite
pictures which the marines
have to move around in
Baghdad. They know it's
there, they know what
it is. Now, when I got
to the museum, which is
far more than a week ago,
there were gun battles
going on between rioters
and looters, bullets skittering
up the walls of apartment
blocks outside. It was
quite clear when I walked
in that looting was quite
clearly.... Someone has
opened the doors, the
huge safe doors of the
storeroom of the museum
with a key. The looting
was on a most detailed,
precise and coordinated
scale. The people knew
what the wanted to go
for. Those Grecian statues
they didn't want they
decapitated and threw
to the floor. Those earrings
and gold ornaments and
bullring gods that they
wanted to take, they took.
And within a few days
those priceless heritage
items of Iraq's history
were on sale in Europe
and in America. I don't
believe that that happened
by chance.
Two of the interesting
things: number one is
the looters knew exactly
what they wanted and they
got it out of a country
with a speed that we as
journalists cannot get
our stories out of the
country. Secondly, a much
more serious in the long
term. The arsonists, the
men who were going around
burning, they must have
had maps, they knew where
to go, they knew what
would not be defended
by the Americans. In one
case, you know this is
a city without electricity,
without water, I recognized
one of the men who was
burning things. He had
a small beard, a goatee
beard and he had a red
t-shirt, and the second
time I saw him, I looked
at him and he pointed
a [inaudible] rifle at
me, he realized I recognized
him. They were coming
to the scenes of arsonists
in blue and white buses.
God knows where these
buses were from. They
weren't city corporation
buses, although city corporation
buses were being used
by looters. But the arsonists
were an army. They were
calculated and they knew
where to go, they had
maps, they were told where
to go. Who told them where
to go? Who told them where
the Americans would not
shoot at them or would
not harm them? This is
a very, very important
question that still needs
to be reconciled and answered.
And I do not have an answer.
And none of my colleagues
unfortunately have asked
the American military
in Qatar, in Doha what
the answer is. Somebody
told these people where
to go, they had the maps,
they knew the places to
go and burn, they knew
the American military
would not be there and
they went there and they
burned. Who gave them
those instructions, I
don't know the answer.
I really don't know the
answer, but there is an
answer, and we should
know what this.
Goodman:
Maguire Gibson,
a leading Mesopotamian
scholar from the University
of Chicago, said he has
good reason to believe
that the looting or the
stealing of the artifacts
from the museum with men
going in with forklifts
and even keys to vaults...he
has good reason to believe
this was orchestrated
from outside the country.
Fisk:
There is certainly a reason
to believe, Amy, that
there were keys involved
because some of the vaults
I saw were opened with
keys and not with hammers
or guns or explosives.
Fork lift trucks? They
had the ability to move
heavy statues into trucks.
When I got there, they
had just done that. But
I don't know if they used
fork lift trucks, I think
that might be a little
too Hollywood. There were
men who were guards to
the museum in long gray
beards who had taken rifles,
[inaudible] Ak-47's weapons
to defend what was left.
But if you're saying to
me "do I have evidence
of fork lift trucks?"
-- No.
Do I have evidence that
they knew what they were
coming for, yes! Do I
have evidence that this
was premeditated, yes!
Do I believe that the
arsonists were trained
and organized from outside
who knew whether or not
the Americans would be
present or whether the
American military would
defend certain buildings,
yes! They undoubtedly
did know the Americans
would not confront them.
And the Americans did
not confront them. I actually
got to a point where I
was going around Baghdad
a few days ago, and every
time I saw a tongue of
flame or smoke I'd race
off in my car to the area,
and the last place I went
to that was burning was
the Department of Higher
Education/Computer Science
and as I approached it
I saw a marine sitting
on the wall.
I bounded out of the
car and raced back and
thought I had better see
this guy and I took his
name down. His name was
Ted Nyhom and he was a
member of the Third Marine
Fourth Regiment or Fourth
Marine Third Regiment.
He gave me the number
of his fianc・Jessica
in the states. I actually
rang her up and said "your
man loves you dearly"
(he's a real person) and
I said how the hell is
this happening next door
and he said "well,
we're guarding a hospital"
and I said "there's
a fire next door, a whole
bloody government ministry
is burning. And he said,
"yeah we can't look
everywhere at the same
time." I said, "Ted,
what happened?" and
he said "I don't
know." Now when you
go to sit down...he was
a nice guy, I was happy
to ring his fianc・up
and tell her that he was
safe. But something happened
there. There was a fire,
an entire government ministry
was burning down next
to him and he did nothing.
It didn't seem strange
to him that he wasn't
asked to do anything.
Now there's something
strange about that. It's
not a question of whether
American academic said,
you know, is there something
wrong with the moral property
of an army that doesn't
stop looting and arson.
There's something terribly
wrong there.
My country's army in
Basra was also remiss
in this way. Our Minister
of Defense, Geoff Hoon,
said 'oh well they were
liberating their own property'
when people were looting
hospitals, for god's sakes.
So the British don't get
off on this either, but
the Americans were the
most remiss. And in the
city of Baghdad against
all the international
conventions, particularly
the Geneva Convention,
which have a specific
reference to pillage...
in fact pillage appears
as a crime against humanity
in the Hague Conventions
in 1907 upon in which
the Geneva Conventions
of 1949 were based. There
is a whole reference to
pillage and the Americans
did nothing. They did
nothing to prevent the
pillage of the entire
cultural history of Iraq,
of the museum, or the
documentary history of
the National Archives,
or the Koranic Library
of the Ministry of Religious
Endowment or of the 155
other government locations
around Baghdad. And one
has to ask the question,
why was this permitted
to happen. I don't know
the answer.
Goodman:
We're talking to
Robert Fisk, correspondent
for the Independent newspaper
in Britain. He has just
come out of Iraq where
he has spent the last
month. He is back in Beirut
where he is based. Robert,
the hospitals, you spent
a good amount of time
there. Can you describe
what you saw and perhaps
what we're not seeing.
If you can follow our
coverage at all here in
the United States.
Fisk:
Well as a matter of fact
this afternoon, I took
several roles of film...real
film, not digitized camera
film into my film development
shop here, and was looking
again at the film of children
who'd been hit by American
cluster bombs in Hilla
and Babylon whom I took
photographs of. I'm rather
shocked at myself for
taking pictures of people
in such suffering. I would
have to say, and one must
be fair as a correspondent,
that I think that the
Iraqis did position military
tanks and missiles in
civilian areas. They did
so deliberately; they
did so in order to try
and preserve their military
apparatus in the hope
that the Americans would
not bomb civilian areas.
The Americans did bomb
civilian areas. They may
or may not have destroyed
the military targets;
they certainly destroyed
human beings and innocent
civilians.
War is a disgusting,
cruel, vicious affair.
You know, I say to people
over and over again: war
is not about primarily
victory or defeat, it's
primarily about human
suffering and death. And
if you look through the
pictures, which I have
beside me now as I speak
to you, of little girls
with huge wounds in the
side of their faces made
by the pieces of metal
from cluster bombs, American
cluster bombs, it's degoutant,
as the French say, disgusting
to even look at. But I
have to look at them.
I took these pictures.
The Iraqi regime, which
was brutal and cruel and
is very happy, was very
happy in every sense of
the word, to use these
pictures as propaganda,
must also of course have
its own responsibility
for this. But for me,
the most appalling admission
came when the civil coalition,
which means the Americans,
the British and a few
Australians, decided to
bomb an area, a residential
area of Monsur, with four
2000-pound bombs. I hate
to use these childish
phrases like "bunker-busters"
but these are the same
bombs they dropped on
Tora Bora to try and get
the caves where Bin Laden
was hiding in 2001 in
Afghanistan. And these
huge bombs destroyed the
lives of a minimum of
14 civilians [in Monsur].
The central command in
Doha, Qatar said they
believed Saddam was there,
and that they would send
forensic experts. But
I went there a week after
the Americans entered
Baghdad and no forensic
experts had been sent
there indeed. And the
morning I turned up, I'm
talking about 4 days ago,
the decomposing, horribly
smelling body of a little
baby was pulled out of
the rubble and I can promise
you it wasn't Saddam Hussein,
but the Americans went
on insisting their forensic
scientists were searching
to see if Saddam Hussein
had died there. Well,
he did not and nor did
their forensic scientists
bother; they didn't even
care about going there.
Outrageous. I'm sorry
to say. Outrageous. I
have to be a human being
as well as a journalist.
Again, one needs to also
say that Saddam Hussein
was...is - I'm sure he's
still alive - a most revolting
man. He did use gas against
the Iranians and against
the Kurds. And I also
have to say that when
he used it against the
Iranians, and I wrote
about it in my own newspaper
at the time, the Times,
the British Foreign Office
told my editor the story
was not helpful because
at that stage of course,
Saddam Hussein was our
friend - we were supporting
him. The hypocrisy of
war stinks almost as much
as the civilian casualties.
But let's go back to
the hospitals. The Americans
used cluster bombs in
civilian areas, where
they believed there were
military targets. Near
Hilla, I think the Iraqis
probably did put military
vehicles. That does not
excuse the Americans;
there are specific references
and paragraphs in the
Geneva Conventions to
protect what are called
'protected persons', that
is to say civilians, even
if they are in the presence
of enemy combatants. But
I think the Iraqis did
put military positions
amongst civilians. I can
go so far as to say that
at the museum, which was
looted to the great disgrace
of the Americans, prior
to the American entry
into Baghdad, it was clear
when I got to the museum
after the American entry,
that the Iraqi army had
placed gun positions and
gun pits inside the museum
grounds, at one point
next to a beautiful 3000-year-old
statue of a winged bull.
There were other occasions
when I could clearly see
SAM-6 mobile tracked missiles
parked very close to civilian
houses. The Iraqis did
use civilians as cover.
And the Americans, knowing
they were there, bombed
the civilians anyway.
So who is the war criminal?
I think both of them are.
There you go. That's the
story.
Goodman:
Robert Fisk, do
you have any idea about
casualty numbers right
now?
Fisk:
No, it's impossible. Amy,
it's impossible. You know,
I took my notebook; I
can tell you how many
people in each ward were
wounded in particular
wards, or in particular
hospitals. I can tell
you which doctors told
me how many people died
in A, B, and C hospitals
on certain dates, but
when it comes to the overall
figure, the losing side
has no statistics, because
of course the statistics
die with the regime and
the winning side controls
all the figures. Thousands
of Iraqis must have died.
There was one particularly
terrible scene on what
was known as Highway 8.
It was the main motorway
alongside the Tigris river,
with some university of
Baghdad on the other side
of the river, where for
two and a half days, American
soldiers of the 3rd Infantry
division were fighting
off ambushes, most of
them members of the Republican
Guard. They mounted there
and I talked to all sides
here. I talked to survivors,
I talked to civilians,
I talked to the Americans
on the tanks. The ambush
began at 7:30 on the last
Monday of the war in the
morning. And the motorway
was quite busy with civilian
traffic. The American
3rd Infantry Division
commander told me that
he saw civilian traffic
and he ordered his men
to fire warning shots,
which they did he said
two or three times, after
which they fired at the
cars. And he said 'I had
a duty to protect my men.'
I have to be fair and
quote what he said. He
said "I had a duty
to protect my men, to
protect my soldiers and
we didn't know if they
were carrying RPGs (rocket-propelled
grenades) or explosives.'
But cars which did not
stop were fired at by
United States tanks of
the 3rd Infantry Division.
I walked down the line
of cars which were torn
apart by American tank
shells. There was a very
young woman burned black
in the back of one car.
Her husband or father
or brother beside her,
dead. There was the leg
of a man beside another
car which had been blown
clean in half by an American
M1-A1 tank. There were
piles of blankets covering
families with children
who had been blown to
pieces by the Americans.
It was a real ambush.
They were fired at by
RPG -7's. In one case,
one tank I saw (the American
commander took me around)
who'd received five hits,
one of them on the engine.
And he had opened fire
at a motorcycle carrying
two members of the Iraqi
Republican Guard. One
had died instantly. I
found his body beside
the road with his blood
dribbling into the gutter.
The other was wounded
and the American brought
him back to the tank,
gave him first aid and
sent him off to a medical
company. The American
commander - the same commander
who told his tank crew
to open fire on the civilian
cars - told me that he
saved the life of the
second Republican Guard
who was on the motorcycle
and the guy survived.
I have to assume that's
correct. I didn't see
him. But three days later,
the bodies were still,
including the young woman,
were still lying in the
cars. And bits of human
remains were lying around
in blankets. The stench
was terrible. There were
flies everywhere. The
American officer then
told me that he had asked
the Red Crescent, the
Muslim equivalent of the
Red Cross, to move the
bodies and the cars were
removed. But they were
still there, along with
the bodies the next day.
That's a fact. I saw.
Goodman:
What about the journalists?
It looks like there is
the highest percentage
of foreign journalists,
as a percentage of foreign
casualties, that we have
seen in a long time. It
looks like the number
at this point is 14 journalists
killed as well as the
shelling of the Palestine
Hotel.
Fisk:
Well, I think that the
number of journalists
covering war - indeed,
the number of journalists
in general - is increasing
all the time. And so I
suppose, it's not a very
romantic thing to say,
but I suppose that as
the number of journalists
increase, the number of
casualties among journalists
will increase as well.
There were a number of
incidents which we seem
to have understood. The
ITV reporter, who got
north of the American
lines near Basra, was
returning and got shot
by US Marines, along with
his crew. Another British
reporter who may or may
not have committed suicide,
I don't know, which has
nothing to do with the
Americans or the Iraqis
per se, if that's the
case. We have the Palestine
hotel, which is one of
the more serious cases
of all. That particular
day began with the killing
of the journalist from
Al Jazeera, the Qatari/Doha
television chain, which
of course became famous
in Afghanistan for producing
tapes and airing tapes
of Osama bin Laden. I
had by chance, four days
before Tariq [Ayoub]'s
death, on the roof of
that television station,
been giving a broadcast
myself live to Doha. And
while I was broadcasting,
a cruise missile went
streaking by behind the
building and literally
moved over the bridge
on the right and carried
on up the river Tigris
and there was an airstrike
behind me. And I said
to Tariq afterwards, I
think this is the most
dangerous bloody newspaper
office in the history
of the world, you know?
You're in really great
danger here. There were
gun pits on the right.
And he agreed with me.
And four days later, while
he was on the roof preparing
to do a broadcast, an
American jet came in so
low, according to his
colleagues downstairs,
they thought it would
land on the roof, and
fired a single missile
at the generator beside
him and killed him. About
three and a quarter hours
later, an American M1A1
Abrams tank on the Jumeirah
River bridge, about three
quarters of a mile from
the Palestine Hotel where
the journalists were staying,
fired a single round,
a depleted uranium round,
as I understand, at the
office of Reuters where
they were filming the
same tanks on the bridge.
I was actually between
the tank and the hotel,
when the round was fired.
I was trying to get back
from a story, an assignment
I'd been on, what I'd
put myself on. And the
shell with an extraordinary
noise swooshed over my
head and hit the hotel...bang!
Tremendous concussion.
White Smoke. And when
I got there, two of my
colleagues, one from Reuters
and one from Spanish Television,
both of whom were to die
within a few hours, the
first one within half
an hour, were being brought
out in blood-soaked bed-sheeting.
And a Lebanese colleague,
a woman, Samia, with a
piece of metal in her
brain. She recovered.
She had brain surgery.
She's married to the London
Financial Times correspondent
here in Beirut. She survived.
The initial reaction was
very interesting because
the BBC went on air saying
it was an Iraqi rocket-propelled
grenade. Someone wanted
to frighten the press.
Then it emerged, thanks
be to God for the attempt
to get the truth, that
TV3, a French channel,
had recorded the tanks'
movements and I actually
rushed to their Bureau
and they showed me the
videotape and you saw
the American tanks for
five minutes beforehand,
in complete silence -
there was nothing happening
- going onto the bridge,
moving its turret, and
then firing at the hotel.
The camera shakes and
pieces of plaster and
paint fall in front of
the camera. Clearly, it's
the same shot. Four or
five minutes in which
nothing is happening.
Now I was in between the
tank and the hotel and
there was complete silence.
And when initially the
Americans said they knew
nothing about it, when
it became clear the French
had a film, before the
Americans realized how
long the film was running
for prior to the attack,
they said that the tank
was under persistent sniper
and RPG (rocket-propelled
grenade) fire which is
not true. I would have
heard it because I was
close to the tank and
the hotel and it would
have been picked up on
the soundtrack, which
it wasn't. This statement
was made by General Buford
Blount, the same 3rd Infantry
Division commander who
boasted that he'd be using
depleted uranium munitions
during the war in an interview
with Le Monde in March,
a month ago. And he then
said that there had been
sniper fire and after
the round was fired by
the American tank, the
sniper fire had ceased.
In other words, the clear
implication was that the
gunfire had come from
the Reuters office, which
was a most mendacious,
vicious lie by General
Blount. General Blount
lied in order to cover
up the death of journalists.
It was interesting that
when indeed the Americans
actually arrived in central
Baghdad within a day,
no journalists were raising
these issues with the
Americans who'd just arrived.
They should have done...I
did actually. And in fact
two days later, I was
on the Jumeirah bridge,
and climbed onto the second
tank and asked the tank
commander whether he fired
at the journalists and
he said "I don't
know anything about that,
sir. I'm new here."
Which he may well have
been. How do I know if
he was there before or
not? But that tank round
was fired deliberately
at the hotel and General
Blount's counterfeit -
the commander of the 3rd
Infantry Division - was
a lie. A total lie. And
it was a grotesque lie
against my colleagues.
Samia Mahul had a piece
of metal in her brain,
A young woman who's most
bravely reported the Lebanese
civil war. And against
the Ukrainian cameraman
for Reuters and against
the Spanish cameraman
in the room upstairs.
It was a most disgusting
lie. And as a journalist,
I have to say that. And
General Blount has not
apologized for it. So
far he has gotten away
with his lie. I'm sorry
to say.
Goodman:
Nouvelle Observatoure,
the French Newspaper,
is reporting that a US
Army captain named Captain
Wolford said unlike what
the military reported,
he did not see sniper
fire from the Palestine
hotel. But he did see
what he thought was light
glinting off of binoculars
from one of the hotel's
balconies. He said he
had never been told the
Palestine Hotel was the
home base for almost all
the international journalists
in Baghdad and assumed
the ----
Fisk:
Well, yeah I've heard
this story. I know this.
Well, if American commanders
in the field are not told
the intelligence information
about where people are
in what hotels, it doesn't
say much about the American
military. Look I don't
think the American military
people are inherently
wrong or awful or bad.
You know, I met lots of
American soldiers and
Marines of course. Marines
insist on telling me they're
not soldiers, which is
an odd thing for a Brit
to hear, but I have to
accept it. They were decent
people. One young Marine
came up to me. He wanted
to use my mobile phone
to call his home and I
let him, of course. And
he said "I'm really
sorry, sir, about the
death of your colleagues."
Like he meant it. I don't
think these are intrinsically
bad people. I think the
idea that there's some
ghastly, you know, evil
moving among the American
military is not true.
I don't believe that.
I think they're decent
people and I think they
want to be decent people.
When their generals lie,
it must be hard, as Buford
Blount lied. General Blount
lied about the journalists.
He lied. He was a [inaudible]
soldier.
But the ordinary soldiers
I met, I think they were
quite sympathetic. I think
they understood. And I
think that in some cases,
they were very upset about
what had happened to our
colleagues, but they were
also upset about civilian
casualties whom they'd
caused. You know, when
on Highway 8, I was interviewing
the American tank commander
who'd given the order
to fire at the civilian
cars on the road, I thought
he was a decent person.
I have to say that when
I read my notes afterwards,
and I reflected upon the
fact that the bodies of
the innocents were still
lying in the cars three
days later, I was less
inclined to be kind to
him. I was less inclined
to think he was a nice
person. But I don't think
that the American soldiers
were bad people. I think
they believed in what
they were doing, up to
the point that you can.
I think that they believed
that their war was an
honorable one, even though
I don't think it was.
But I think that they
had been previously misled
and I think something
has gone wrong with the
leadership of the American
military when you can
have a general like Blount
lying about the press.
If to see a flash of what
appears to be a camera
or some kind of reflecting
instrument in a window
is to be the signal for
capital punishment for
those who are legitimately
filming the war for an
international news agency,
something has gone terribly
wrong. I think the real
problem at the end of
the day lies in the White
House, with President
Bush.
There were a number of
American Marines and soldiers
I met who were very helpful
to me in understanding
what was happening. At
one point, I was next
to an American tank that
came under fire - I don't
know where from - and
I thought the soldiers
behaved with great restraint.
They could have shot at
civilians. In some cases,
I know in other places
in Baghdad, they did and
killed people and I think
it was a war crime to
have done so. But in the
American tank I was close
to, they did not. And
those soldiers behaved
admirably. I have to say
that. I think they were
frightened, I think they
were tired. They hadn't
washed etc. but I'm sorry,
I don't get too romantic
about soldiers who invade
other peoples' countries.
But I thought their discipline
was probably pretty good,
to be frank. In other
places, it was not. But
again, you know, war is
primarily about suffering
and death, not about victory
and defeat and not about
presidents who - oh, I'm
so tired of talking about
your president. Or indeed
the president of Iraq
who's a pretty vicious
man frankly if he's still
alive. Where is he? That
should be your last question,
Amy: Where is Saddam Hussein?
Goodman:
Well. I'm not there
yet. But you mentioned
your colleague ----
Fisk:
You're going to ask me
where he is, aren't you?
(they laugh)
Goodman:
OK, where is he?
Fisk:
You know what, I have
this absolute fixation
that he's in Belarus,
the most horrible ex-Soviet
state that exists: Minsk.
I tell you why I think
this. This is long before
the Iran - sorry, Freudian
slip - long before the
Iraq war, I had this absolute
obsession that Minsk -
I've been to Minsk; it's
a horrible city! It's
full of whiskey, corruption,
prostitutes and damp apartments.
Very, very favorable to
the Ba'ath party of Iraq.
And I noticed in the local
newspaper here in Beirut,
I fear about six or seven
weeks ago an article that
said that the Olympic
committee of Belarus in
Minsk had invited Uday
Hussein, beloved son of
the 'great ruler of Iraq',
to a chess tournament
in Minsk and I thought,
My God, this is where
they're going to go. And
if you think of all the
stories which may be complete
hogwash of how they got
out by train with the
Russian ambassador through
Syria, where else to go
but Minsk? I actually
mentioned it to my foreign
desk and my foreign editor
said "Off you go
to Belarus!" and
I said "No please,
please, not Belarus! I've
been there before. It's
awful!" But I do
have this kind of suspicion
maybe he's there. But
there you go. He may be
in Baghdad. He may be
captured tonight. I really
have not the slightest
idea.
Goodman:
Robert Fisk, you
mentioned your Lebanese
colleague who has shrapnel
in her head and said she
covered the civil war
in Beirut, which brings
us to a piece you did
about questioning whether
what we're going to see
in Iraq is the beginning
of a civil war between
the Sunni and the Shiia.
What do you think now?
Fisk:
Well, if it's not the
beginning of a civil war
between the Sunni and
the Shiia in Iraq, it
will be the beginning
of a war of liberation
by the Sunni and the Shiia
themselves against the
Americans. My feeling
is that there will be
a war - it may already
have begun - against the
Americans by the Iraqis.
The Kurds will play a
different role for all
kinds of reasons, but
the Sunnis and the Shiias
may well find some unity
in trying to get rid of
their occupiers. You know,
one can't help in the
Middle East but be struck
by the ironies of history.
Just over a week before
- no, two weeks before
America invaded Iraq,
a document went on auction.
It's a public auction
in Britain at Swinden
in southwestern England.
And I made a bid for it.
As a matter of fact, I
found out it was going
to go on sale and it was
the official British document
issued by Lieutenant General
Sir Stanley Maude after
he invaded Iraq with the
British Army in 1917.
And it was his proclamation
to the people of the Zilayah,
that's to say the governerate
of Baghdad. And I quote
from the first paragraph:
"We come here not
as conquerors, but as
liberators to free you
from the tyranny of generations,"
just like President Bush
says he's come now. I
actually wrote about this
document in the newspaper
and said it was going
to come up for auction
which was a very bad mistake
because the auctioneers
rang me up from Swinden,
England to Beirut when
I was actually interviewing,
ironically enough, three
Iraqi refugees here in
Beirut. And they said
do you want to bid for
it, the bidding has started.
I said yes I will bid
for it. And it was originally
going to go for US $156.
And so many readers of
the Independent who'd
read my article turned
up - it actually went
for $2000. And God spare
me, I bought it. So now
I am the owner of Sir
Stanley Maude's document,
telling the people of
Baghdad that the new occupiers,
the British Army of 1917,
had come there as liberators,
not as conquerors, to
free them from the tyranny
of generations of tyrants
and dictators. And now,
you know, a few weeks
later, there I am in Baghdad,
listening to the American
Marine Corps issuing an
identical document, telling
the people they'd come
not as conquerors, but
as liberators, and I wonder
sometimes whether people
ever, ever read history
books.
Goodman:
We're talking to
Robert Fisk, the correspondent
for The Independent. He
is tired. He has just
come out of Iraq after
a month....
Fisk:
He's definitely tired,
Amy. He's very definitely
tired, yeah.
Goodman:
Well, I wanted to
ask you about - you might
have heard about Judith
Miller's report in the
New York Times, saying
a former Iraqi scientist
has told a US military
team that Iraq destroyed
chemical weapons and biological
warfare equipment only
days before the war began
and also said Iraq secretly
sent unconventional weapons
and technology to Syria
starting in the 80's and
that more recently...
Fisk:
(overlapping): How amazing....how
amazing...how very fortunate
that that special report
should come out now. Listen,
every time I read Judith
Miller in the New York
Times, I nod sagely and
smile. That's all I'm
going to say to you, Amy.
I'm sorry. Don't ask me
to even comment upon it.
It's not a serious issue.
Goodman:
Then let me ask
you about the targeting
of Syria right now.
Fisk:
Look, Syria will not be
invaded by the United
States because it doesn't
have enough oil. It will
be threatened by the United
States, on Israel's behalf
perhaps, but it doesn't
have sufficient oil to
make it worth invading.
So the answer is: Syria
will not be invaded.
Goodman:
As you leave Iraq
and you look back at what
you saw, what are key
areas that you see as
different, for example,
than the Persian Gulf
War and what happened
afterwards and what are
you going to pursue right
now?
Fisk:
Well, we've got the first
occupation of an Arab
capital by a Western army
since General Allenby
entered Jerusalem and
since Sir Stanley Maude
entered Baghdad. We did
have the brief period
of French and American
armies entering Damascus
and indeed Beirut in the
second World War. But
that was part of a Vichy
French Allied War. It
wasn't part of a colonial
war. We now have American
troops occupying the wealthiest
Arab country in the world.
And the shockwaves of
that are going to continue
for decades to come, long
after you and I are in
our graves, if that's
where we go. And I don't
think we have yet realized
- I don't think that the
soldiers involved or the
Presidents involved have
yet realized the implications
of what has happened.
We have entered a new
age of imperialism, the
life of which we have
not attempted to judge
or assess or understand.
Well, I'm 56 now - maybe
I'll never see the end
of it, I probably won't.
But my goodness me, I've
never seen such historical
acts take place in the
27 years I've been in
the Middle East. And the
results cannot be good.
I don't believe we've
gone to Iraq because of
weapons of mass destruction.
If we'd done that, we
would have invaded North
Korea. I don't believe
we've gone there because
of human rights abuses
because we connived at
those abuses for many
years when we supported
Saddam. I think we've
gone there for oil. And
though we may get the
oil, I think the price
will be very high. More
than that, I don't know.
You know, my crystal ball,
as I always say, has broken
a long time ago. But I'll
keep on watching the story,
I guess, because like
my father who was much
older than my mother,
was a soldier in the first
World War, I want to keep
watching history happen.
I would, however, yet
again, for the umpteenth
time on your program,
Amy, quote Amira Haas,
that wonderful journalist
for Ha'aretz, the Israeli
newspaper, who said "the
purpose of journalism
is to monitor the centers
of power" and we
still do not do that,
and we must monitor the
centers of power and we
must try to question why
governments do the things
that they do and why they
lie about it. And we don't
do that. We don't do that.
Goodman:
Well Robert Fisk,
I want to thank you for
doing that.
ZNet (http://www.zmag.org)
|