Media

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 6°C

Iraq: 'Basra is now worse than when the British troops arrived'

Six years after the invasion, the BBC's Hugh Sykes reflects on the changing security picture

I've just spent a rewarding and enriching week in Basra – eating in restaurants, visiting shops, interviewing people in markets, driving around. I saw that Basra was mostly worse than it was when I first visited the city after British forces arrived there six years ago.

Basra was once known as the Venice of the East as it has dozens of canals. But there is no romance in them now. They are clogged with sewage and rubbish – household waste, abandoned cars, broken bikes and plastic bottles and bags.

I was able to report objectively from Basra entirely because of the careful planning and immense care of two BBC security advisers who watched my back. They are former soldiers, but are now BBC staff. I mustn't be too precise – but I can say that they are well-equipped to respond to danger. And – more importantly – they carry what they call a "keep you alive" medical kit.

Some of my newspaper colleagues think that even these measures are over the top, but the BBC has had to deal with dreadful incidents in recent years. The Gaza correspondent, Alan Johnston, was kidnapped. In Somalia, a producer, Kate Peyton, was shot dead. A reporter wearing headphones and holding a large microphone is an easy target.

And I do television reports as well. One day I had to walk through a Basra market, talking straight to the camera for two minutes. There is no way I would have done that without someone watching out for me and the cameraman, Nick Woolley.

It's a difficult balancing act – between caution and fear. I think we've got the balance right. It hasn't always been so challenging. The first time I went to Basra, in July 2003 – before the militias and the insurgency had evolved – I went from Baghdad by taxi. But even then I went with a driver trusted by the BBC's Iraqi office manager.

I stayed in a rundown hotel. I might have stayed there again this week, but our security advisers preferred a temporary "hotel" near the British base in the desert – if I'd stayed in that Basra hotel again, one of them would have had to stay up all night on guard. A reasonable compromise, I think.

The "free range" reporting of the early days is the best way, of course – if it's safe.

In the Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad, in 2003, I met a man with a lapel badge: "Iraqi Mothers Relief Organisation". Haithem took me down to Hillah, two hours drive south, to meet people bereaved during the invasion.

I met Riath Hussein, who had been blinded in both eyes by US troops after a misunderstanding at a checkpoint. One American soldier had raised a fist, and shouted "stop". Riath and his brother Faris thought the fist was a sign of solidarity and encouragement, and didn't stop. The Arabic for "stop" is not stop, it is "kef". Faris was killed.

That freedom to roam informed a report in which I said that the Americans were out of their depth, and rapidly antagonising the Iraqi population. It obviously resonated with a lot of people.

But then, Iraq became too dangerous for unescorted reporting. For two years, my best access to Iraqis was when embedded with US battalions in Baghdad. They hooked me up with Iraqi engineers at some impressive reconstruction projects (new sewers, water treatment plants), and took me to polling stations for the two elections and the referendum in 2005.

But it was while embedded that I witnessed two alarming incidents – the immediate aftermath of a suicide bombing at one of the polling stations (two Iraqi policemen were dismembered), and a roadside bomb exploding as I was being driven in a Humvee (no one was hurt).

I now do regular three-week stints as the BBC's Baghdad correspondent. Our bureau is in the city, not in the Green Zone. It is well guarded. And we get out a lot, with the same discreet protection that I had in Basra. Using lo-profile local vehicles, we visit cafés, markets, shops, offices and do live TV and radio broadcasts from a park. But we try not to stay at any one place too long. Mobile phones are an easy way to summon kidnappers.

It is very different in other places. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our security policy is being constantly re-calibrated – and it may become like Iraq. But it hasn't yet. In Syria, Egypt, Israel and the West Bank we can still report unescorted, but not in Gaza. And in Lebanon, the main problem is bureaucracy; to visit south Beirut last year, for example, I had to get accreditation from Hizbollah. And a Hizbollah escort walked around with me.

Back in Iraq, in the worst times, a US battalion commander asked, "Hugh, are you scared when you come out with us?" I thought for a moment, and replied, "No. But I am very alert."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Basrah happy days
[info]alanski wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 05:57 am (UTC)
Yes I remember too walking the streets and souks in Basrah after a long drive from Baghdad. No problems for me or for that matter the Iraqis Shia and Sunni who got on pretty well together. No garbage, no militia roaming the streets. Oh yes that was in the late eighties and then Saddam was in charge. What a difference a war makes eh!
Bias
[info]falanf wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 06:58 am (UTC)
But when it does get better, will the Independent report it?
Re: Bias
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 01:04 pm (UTC)

When invaders come to make the UK better, then you will be in a better position to comment about whats been imposed on you.
Iraq Basra
[info]flopsy88 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)

For goodness sake give this guy (Hugh) a medal......................
Is this about Basra or Hugh Sykes?
[info]findempire wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
All that the article tells us about Basra is that the canals are full of junk and sewage now whereas they were presumably crystal-clear in Saddam's time. All the rest is about how Hugh Sykes can give Jack Bauer a run for his money.

It's surprising that this newspaper doesn't take credit for predicting this latest British defeat in Iraq. It's not as bad as the greatest British military defeat ever, the one at Kut al-Amara that Robert Fisk reminded us of in 2003, foreseeing that the British soft-beret nice-guy approach wouldn't fool the Iraqi BS meter and that the Brits would inevitably pay the price for being colonial occupiers.

That they did. The Mahdi army mortared and rocketed them out of Saddam's palace, sent them scuttling across the desert, then forced them to retreat to the airport and bunker down there, never to emerge again until the day they were finally ordered to withdraw.

After the Brits withdrew to the airport, Maliki sent his troops to take out the Sadrists but they too were cut down and it was finally the Yanks who rolled in with their massive firepower to take Basra from Sadr and hand it to the Iranian stooge Maliki.

Conclusion: 179 more British dead in Iraq (on top of the thousands the Ottomans killed), countless Iraqi civilians slaughtered, their country destroyed, all of it for the end result of partitioning Iraq and handing the juiciest parts to Iran.
He doesn't tell us very much
[info]old_green wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
He tells us very little about the conditions for ordinary people except that the canals are now filled with sewage and rubbish.

This article is mainly about restrictions on journalists - or rather, BBC travel recommendations and policy
Well I Never
[info]bundubasher wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 12:38 pm (UTC)
I thought I was about to read something interesting about Basra and what I got was how hard it is for some BBC journalist to get about in "safety" .
Instability caused by..the UK/USA.
Waste of time writing it.says nothing.
Back to Counter Punch and ICH for "real" news by people over there.
Porbably not balanced
[info]username23x4567 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)
Stopped reading after the 'fist and guns aimed at a poor fellow, made him think it was an encouragement!

He may have thought that, but it's a bit unbalanced to accept it so easily.

At least mention the risk that his vehicle was going to ram them!

Not sure why such a writer should get such prominence, just at this moment, other then it being independent.co.uk sanctioned.

Shame on them

(even their comments process is dodgy... let you comment, then demand you sign up! Sneaky!)
[info]alsatian_67000 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 02:01 pm (UTC)
Whoever decided upon your headline should be disgusted with themselves, they epitomise everything we British detest about journalists. The headline says that 'because of British troops, the life of someone living in Basra is worse than it was' .

The truth is hidden in your report - that before "the militias and the insurgency had evolved" life was better. But their involvement was inevitable/expected and the British troops in Basra were ready and have dealt with them in a uniquely British way so different from our American colleagues further North. It won't take long to clean the canals and people will be able to travel as they did in 2003, BECAUSE of our troops and not DESPITE their involvement. If you, Mr. Sykes, were not responsible for your headline, complain bitterly. If you decided on the headline, you have lost my respect, one gained over years of fine reporting.
pointless
[info]rexxxxxxxx wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 03:52 pm (UTC)

Why would anyone risk there lives just to write this drivel.

This reporter is very brave going to Basra to keep us informed,but I for one don't feel enriched from the result



THANKYOU SOLDIERS FOR THE VOTE
[info]copycat7 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 07:36 pm (UTC)
"THANKYOU SOLDIERS FOR THE VOTE.......Can i have my mummy and daddy brothers and sisters back now?"
Iraq: 'Basra is now worse than when the British troops arrived'
[info]housebird wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 02:48 am (UTC)
The USA brought a Holocaust to Iraq over 25 years culminating in the invasion and occupation of that country.
The sanctions under President Clinton killed over 500,000 Iraqi children and over 1.3 Million have been killed ( ICH) since the US 2003 invasion.

Since 2003 over 4 million Iraqi people are displaced there is Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs all over and Iraqi infrastructure is devastated with limited electricity and clean water everywhere.

All this orchestrated by Jewish American neocons in the G.W.Bush Administration in collusion with Tel Aviv in its drive to create a "crusade" against Islam by the West.
Parts of Iraq are included in the Jewish plan to establish Eretz Israel which is happening in Iraqi Kurdish areas but we never hear anything negative against Israel as that is deemed antisemitic.

The shameful illegal "war" carried out by the US and the UK on behalf of Israel is called Ruperts War on behalf of Rupert Murdoch who sold the "War" in the US , the UK ,Canada and Australia.

.

Most popular