Arnett’s Killing Words

Below, The Elder links to Peter Arnett’s explanation for being allowed to report from Iraq, saying the Iraqis merely respected him as a “ fellow warrior.” It’s interesting to compare that reasoning to what Peter Arnett said to The New Republic magazine, back in October of 2002 . Regarding the rules for reporting in Iraq:

"There's a quid pro quo for being there," says Peter Arnett, who worked the Iraq beat for CNN for a decade. "You go in and they control what you do. ... So you have no option other than to report the opinion of the government of Iraq."

So I guess the Iraqi regime not only considers him a “fellow warrior” but perhaps a fellow traveler as well?

I do wonder about Arnett’s motives. Was he just being overly accommodating in an attempt to gain further access to the Iraqi leadership, as some have claimed? Or was he instead relaying his true opinions (and they were opinions), and they just happened to coincide with the interests of the Iraqi government?

My guess is that it was probably the latter. His statements from today and his half-assed apologies (which are at the level of “I’m sorry you feel that way”) indicate he may indeed believe what he was saying. Perhaps that's not surprising, since Arnett’s ill-informed comments about the US War plan being a failure and the growing influence of the anti-war movement and it’s ability to affect Bush administration policy, are the type of comments one hears quite commonly from reporters at press conferences and in their articles and TV reports.

Ultimately, the true danger of Arnett’s comments (and those of his anti-war cohorts in the media) is their very real potential to prolong the war and increase the casualty rate of both Allied forces and the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi armed forces (both Republican Guard and otherwise) believe that Saddam’s reign is at an end and thus they need not fear any retribution from him, they’ll be much more likely to surrender. Even supporters of the regime would be less likely to fight if they believe that their cause is hopeless (which it is).

Same goes for the citizenry of Iraq. They’ll be much less likely to participate in popular uprisings or even to cooperate with Allied forces if they believe there’s a chance Saddam Hussein and his regime will survive this conflict. Comments from Arnett such as ...

Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States," he said. "It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments."

... can only serve to create the seeds of doubt in the minds of those wishing to assist us, but fearful that weakening American resolve may lead to a premature end of the war. I don’t believe Saddam’s survival is even a remote possibility, given President Bush’s commitment to a full and complete victory. But encouraging the false hopes of Saddam’s supporters and discouraging the resistance of his enemies will inevitably lead to more casualties on both sides.

I wonder, does Peter Arnett even take this into consideration when choosing to appear on Iraqi TV? A medium he has admitted he knows to be dedicated to Iraqi propoganda. If yes, then why does he do it? Does he feel that expressing his doubts and opinions is a higher priority than the lives of a few soldiers and Iraqi citizens? Or does he think that these deaths are an acceptable price to pay in order for him to get exclusive access to Iraqi government officials? Or does he not think at all in his quest to enhance his own industry reputation and professional profile amongst his peers?

I’m not sure what the answer is, though I suspect he’s motivated to some degree by all of these factors. We may never know the truth, since he's been fired by NBC and I suspect his next reporting gig may be limited to covering the big Schuller's Shoe sale for the Har Mar Mall Weekly Shopper's News.