Peter Arnett: U.S. War Plan Has Failed

Remember CNN’s sweetheart in 1991 campaign? Well, he is back in Bag Dad. He told Iraqi TV that the Pentagon war plan had failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now expect his patriotism to be qustioned by the rigt-wing. Military may try to silence him as they did before.

**Reporter Arnett: U.S. War Plan Has Failed **

By DAVID BAUDER
The Associated Press
Sunday, March 30, 2003; 9:11 PM

Journalist Peter Arnett, covering the war from Baghdad, told state-run Iraqi TV in an interview aired Sunday that the American-led coalition’s first war plan had failed because of Iraq’s resistance and said strategists are “trying to write another war plan.”

Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize reporting in Vietnam for The Associated Press, garnered much of his prominence from covering the 1991 Gulf War for CNN. He is reporting from the Iraqi capital now for NBC and its cable stations.

The interview could make Arnett a target of the war’s supporters. The first Bush administration was unhappy with Arnett’s reporting in 1991 for CNN, suggesting he had become a conveyor of propaganda.

He was denounced for his reporting about an allied bombing of a baby milk factory in Baghdad that the military said was a biological weapons plant. The American military responded vigorously to the suggestion it had targeted a civilian facility, but Arnett stood by his reporting that the plant’s sole purpose was to make baby formula.

NBC, in a statement Sunday, praised Arnett’s “outstanding” reporting from Iraq and said he was trying nothing more than to give an analytical response to an interviewer’s questions.

In the interview, Arnett said his Iraqi friends tell him there is a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain are doing.

He said the United States is reappraising the battlefield and delaying the war, maybe for a week, “and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan.”

“Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces,” Arnett said during the interview broadcast by Iraq’s satellite television station and monitored by The Associated Press in Egypt.

Arnett said it is clear that within the United States there is growing opposition to the war and a growing challenge to President Bush about the war’s conduct.

“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.”

The interview was broadcast in English and translated by a green military uniform-wearing Iraqi anchor. NBC said Arnett gave the interview when asked shortly after he attended an Iraqi government briefing.

“His impromptu interview with Iraqi TV was done as a professional courtesy and was similar to other interviews he has done with media outlets from around the world,” NBC News spokeswoman Allison Gollust said. “His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more. His outstanding reporting on the war speaks for itself.”

Arnett was the on-air reporter of the 1998 CNN report that accused American forces of using sarin gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Two CNN employees were sacked and Arnett was reprimanded over the report, which the station later retracted. Arnett ultimately left the network.

He went to Iraq this year not as an NBC News reporter but as an employee of the MSNBC show, “National Geographic Explorer.” When other NBC reporters left Baghdad for safety reasons, the network began airing his reports.

Give me couple of thousand dolla and I will declare Iraq's victory :D.

These days its really difficult to know the truth. Whom to trust jazeera or CNN. Both of them are biased in one way or other.

I'm just as against this war as the next guy here (check my old posts for proof), but what this guy did is just damn stupid. I wouldn't use the term "unpatriotic" since its definition is so fluid, but in my opinion it is treasonous. Arnett has shown a willful tendency over the years to do such things. This isn't an emotional breakdown like the grenade attacker in Kuwait. Arnett isn't any more qualified than any other idiot to make these pronouncements and the fact that every other idiot has restrained themselves from such stupidity says something. It is one thing to use freedom of speech to voice dissent, but going out of your way to engage in an act that clearly provides aid and comfort to the enemy - even if you don't believe them to be a valid enemy - is wrong, so long as you remain a citizen.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon:

I wouldn't use the term "unpatriotic" since its definition is so fluid, but in my opinion it is treasonous.
[/QUOTE]

Why? Is everybody who speaks out against this illegal war, and exposes the fact that it is failing, committing treachery against the United States? Let's not forget that Peter Arnett was one of the first western reporters to say on the spot that the US bombed a clearly civilian site in the first Gulf war i.e. the Amirya bombing shelter massacring hundreds of Iraqi women and children. I guess you would call that exposition of US military crimes an act of treachery as well?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Is everybody who speaks out against this illegal war, and exposes the fact that it is failing, committing treachery against the United States?
[/QUOTE]
No. If that were the case I'd be hung by now. What makes this different than simple dissent (if he just did a rant on NBC/CNN/etc and not Iraq TV) is that this is for the explicit consumption of Iraq at the request of Iraq. That means, he knows this is meant solely to aid the 'enemy'. It is not an altruistic attempt to clear the air of American lies, he could do that on NBC.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon:

What makes this different than simple dissent (if he just did a rant on NBC/CNN/etc and not Iraq TV) is that this is for the explicit consumption of Iraq at the request of Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

Please show us the proof to back up this allegation, if you have any?

I might go as far to say that he is compromised being the only western reporter in Bagdad. He cannot afford to offend.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *

[/QUOTE]

That is a dead link. But I guess you now think that every foreign reporter who makes any critical comment of the illegal American war after attending an Iraqi government briefing is committing treachery?

Please come up with more proof than that rubbish.

The grand plan was to hide behind massive shiite uprising. You all have seen the kind of treatment GI Joes recieved at the hands of shiites. FYI the suicide squad is 90 percent shiite the first suicide attack was by a shiite... So when Peter said the plan has failed he is on the mark..The plan was for easy victory a short one week war...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
The grand plan was to hide behind massive shiite uprising. You all have seen the kind of treatment GI Joes recieved at the hands of shiites. FYI the suicide squad is 90 percent shiite the first suicide attack was by a shiite... So when Peter said the plan has failed he is on the mark..The plan was for easy victory a short one week war...
[/QUOTE]

What a bunch of buffons! I could have hazard a guess that whatever the dreams of glory may have been, they were/are miscalculated.

I don't think any of them put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqi people.

What can one say of chicken-hawks.

Better battle would be Saddam and Bush boxing championships.

Malik:
See my earlier post for the differences. If everyone that vocally opposes this war is a traitor I would be dead by now.

Also, the link is working fine for me. It is the Washington Post, see the 11th paragraph for what I quoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54889-2003Mar30.html

Ah yes, Saddam and Tariq Azis did challenged Bush and his cronies but guess what the moneky chicekned out.

Saddam is lot older then bush..

Oh, and to make clear.. my point is not that he is aiding Iraq because he attended a govt briefing - it was a press briefing.. it is because they asked him to help and he did. If a sexy Russian woman walked up to you and asked for the schematics of Abdali (the missle) and you gave them, that is aiding the enemy. Information on things other than military hardware is still espionage. And I think I should also clarify that one too.. technically what he did is not treason, it is espionage. Though it may be able to be called treason. But really espionage is only a term that makes it easier to prosecute treason.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
If a sexy Russian woman walked up to you and asked for the schematics of Abdali (the missle)

[/QUOTE]

Trust me I wont give her the schematics but the missile itself :D

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon:
*Malik:
See my earlier post for the differences... *

[/QUOTE]

I did, but it still not an answer the question I posed in my last post. Do you think that every foreign reporter who makes any critical comment of the illegal American war after attending an Iraqi government briefing is committing treachery?

So far you have come up with a very flimsy case with not an iota of real proof to back up your allegations, which would land a great deal of foreign reporters in the dock on the charge of "treachery".

Well, Peter Arnett has been fired by the network!!

Somehow I knew you’d say that.. :biggthumb:

Trust me Abdali missile is very active always ready seeking targets :smiley:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
I did, but it still not an answer the question I posed in my last post. Do you think that every foreign reporter who makes any critical comment of the illegal American war after attending an Iraqi government briefing is committing treachery?

So far you have come up with a very flimsy case with not an iota of real proof to back up your allegations, which would land a great deal of foreign reporters in the dock on the charge of "treachery".
[/QUOTE]
Foreign citizens cannot be charged with treason against the United States. As far as I know Arnett is an American citizen? (If not he is most likely a citizen of one in the 'coalition' who all have similar laws regarding this.) The principle behind treason is that you are undermining the efforts of your country and putting fellow citizens in danger by doing so. Whether or not your country is legally right in its efforts does not matter in domestic law, unless your actions were to correct the legal discrepancy - which Peter Arnett is not doing.

Simply.. the term treason, or espionage, applies to what Arnett did because he is an American. For any other foreign reporter or citizen, if they commit a crime against America they can be charged with that crime. Simple dissent is not a crime though. There are qualifications that serve to differentiate simple dissent, which is covered under the First Amendment, and any criminal offense.