Why I’m not going to Iraq
I’m not going to Iraq (or even Afghanistan). You can release that breath you’ve been holding, Mom.
It’s not for a lack of interest. As bank robber Willie Sutton apparently never actually said, he robbed banks because “that’s where they keep the money.” In 30 years, assuming someone doesn’t run me over with a truck in response to some story along the way, when I look back on the first decade of the 21st century, the story that will stick out over the years will be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And despite my protestations that I’m still a features reporter at heart, I have a desire to go where they keep the stories.
Obviously, Iraq is a lot more dangerous than Bosnia was when I went there in 1997, but I kid myself that I’m a bit more savvy and aware as well.
But my inquiries with the Pentagon have gone nowhere, and the 703 area code telephone number I was given was not, in fact, a number for an office in Arlington, but rather it transfers to Baghdad. (That alone seems pretty bizarre to me — surely people in Arlington have fewer people trying to kill them and don’t need to send a robot to prod at a piece of trash on the side of the road for an hour.)
It turns out that I’m not the only one in the media unable to get into Iraq:
The number of embedded journalists reporting alongside U.S. troops in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level of the war even as the conflict heats up on the streets of Baghdad and in the U.S. political campaign.
In the past few weeks, the number of journalists reporting assigned to U.S. military units in Iraq has settled to below two dozen. Late last month, it fell to 11, its lowest, and has rebounded only slightly since.
During the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, more than 600 reporters, TV crews and photographers linked up with U.S. and British units. A year ago, when Iraqis went to the polls to ratify a new constitution, there were 114 embedded journalists.
Christenson, who has embedded with U.S. units four times since the 2003 invasion, describes the embed program as “broken” and says both the military and editors are to blame. Danger and cost are the major factors.
“You can start with the fact that editors are damned nervous about sending their reporters into Baghdad,” Christenson wrote in his blog. “But getting to Baghdad is the main problem. Almost four years after the Pentagon unveiled the embedding program, there’s no clear-cut way to cover the troops in Iraq.”
The embedding process begins with multiple e-mails to the U.S. press office and to individual military commands asking for permission to embed. If a commander agrees, more correspondence is needed to get aboard a U.S. military flight.
An alternative is to fly commercially to Baghdad. But roundtrip airfare from the United States begins at about US$2,000 (€1,600). Once at the Baghdad airport, journalists often need costly security teams with armored cars to bring them into the city.
I think I did a reasonably good job in Bosnia and would love the chance to take a crack at one of the most (if not the most) important stories of our time. But it doesn’t look like I’ll be getting my chance any time soon.
- Update: This week’s On the Media discusses the subject in detail. It turns out half the embedded reporters left are with Stars & Stripes.
:”
