From the BBC, In pictures: War on Iraq begins.

There's a surprisingly good article from USA Today about the US plan to track and kill Saddam Hussein using special forces. Of note was this quote:

Last year, Bush directed the CIA to undertake a covert mission to topple Saddam and, if the operatives believed their lives were in danger, to kill him.

I hadn't heard about this, was the mission carried out?

I'm home sick today, so no commentary here, just some links to some other opinions:

Rick Bruner: So Let's Have a War Already

Jason Kottke: The war

Gavin Sheridan: On War – and why it is happening

Also Russian Expert Predicts 500,000 Iraqi Dead in War Designed To Test Weapons.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

From Robin Cook's resignation speech in the UK House of Commons yesterday. Here's the full text. I recommend you watch the video (RealAudio). It's 11 1/2 minutes long and he makes some excellent points. It's hard to imagine an American politician taking such a stand, or possessing such eloquence.

I've been avoiding making a direct post about my opinion on the upcoming Iraq war because I've felt it's been so muddled and unclear. I've been spending a tremendous amount of time thinking about it, and reading as much as I can. Since megnut serves not only as a space for me to share my thoughts but also as a repository for them for my future reference, I'm going to attempt to organize everything I've been thinking into some sort of post for my own sake. (Hi Meg from the future, checking in to see what Meg of 2003 thought about the Iraq situation!)

Of this I am certain:

• Saddam Hussein is a dictator.
• He has invaded his neighbors twice in the past 20 years.
• He has brutally repressed his people and executed those who oppose him.
• He agreed to disarm as part of the terms of surrender of the Gulf War.
• He kicked out UN arms inspectors who were ensuring his adherence to that agreement. I was wrong, The inspectors left of their own accord.
• He has destroyed some of his weapons.

Of this I am also certain:

• The United States not only faces enemy nations, as it did in 20th century, but also terrorists whose allegiance is to a religion or idea rather than a state.
• A new approach is required in how we defend ourselves against this threat, and how we defeat them.

And so where do I stand? I am in support of enforcing the UN resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein, and I support a UN-authorized military action, if that is what is required, though I'd prefer a peaceful inspections process. I would like to see a regime change in Iraq. I would be very happy if some kind of representative government could develop after Hussein is removed from power. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of America unilaterally removing someone from power. And I am very disturbed by the approach the American government has taken to achieve its goals.

Last night President Bush once again invoked the Al Queda/Iraq connection, for which we have seen no evidence. So either a) the evidence exists but the US refuses to share it even with the Security Council of the United Nations or b) President Bush went on television last night and lied to the American people.

I am disgusted by the flip-flop reasoning of the Bush administration, by their refusal to provide sufficient evidence for their actions, by their continued polarization of the situation, and their blatant disrespect for the intelligence of the American population, and the world.

I feel lucky to have lived in the brief time of incredible prosperity and relative peace prior to September 11, 2001. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and cease fires in global hot spots like Northern Ireland and Israel, I thought we might have moved into humanity's post-war period (sort of like Star Trek's Federation of Planets). Boy was I naïve. But I'd still like to believe that there are other ways of dealing with conflicts, and that we're slowly moving towards alternative methods of doing so (in this case diplomacy, international coalitions, and inspections), with war as the last resort.

But the American government is determined to forge another course. Their justifications for an imminent attack of Iraq are hypocritical and unsubstantiated, and only enforce the impression that America is a bullying hyperpower bent on running the world how it sees fit. This war is not the last resort, it is a failure of diplomacy. Mr. Bush, you could have convinced me to support you, but you didn't. Instead, you lied and smirked and condescended. Your actions make me ashamed to be American.

Also, I suppose now we should change the name of the Lafayette Project to the Freedom Project to demonstrate our support for the USA and our utter distain for all things French.

From the New York Times: Letters to the Editor regarding the passage of the "partial-birth" abortion ban in the Senate last week.

Lots of interesting email and links over the weekend regarding Thursday's post about targeting journalists in Iraq. Based on everything I've received, my opinion is that the US isn't specifically targeting journalists (writes a former member of the US Armed Forces, "By the Rules of Engagement, the U.S. could never legally fire upon journalists of any nation, if they knew they were journalists,") they are warning journalists that if they aren't embedded with US troops, they risk being fired upon because it's difficult to distinguish between a "friendly" satellite transmissions and one from the enemy. From the San Francisco Bay Guardian's Spoon-feeding the press article:

[T]he Pentagon recently issued a set of rules for war coverage in the looming campaign against Iraq that call for the "embedding" of approximately 500 reporters with U.S. troops. Immediately, the new regulations were hailed as a victory by mainstream media. But when you look at what the rules really say, the picture isn't so pretty.

"On paper it looks like a considerable improvement," Schanberg said. "For example, there's no auto review of copy by the military." On closer inspection, however, Schanberg found reasons for concern. All reporters "embedded" with U.S. troops must sign a contract agreeing to the Pentagon's rules governing coverage. Included in the document is a clause dictating what kinds of information reporters can and cannot detail. Journalists can be precluded from reporting certain "sensitive" information according to the military commander's discretion.

Via email from a US journalist in Kuwait:

I was at a briefing yesterday at which the U.S. military briefers made it very clear that any "unilaterals" (i.e. journalists who aren't embedded) who get ahead of the U.S. Army or mixed among it risk being shot or bombed or vaporized in one of the infinite fashions available to the U.S. Army, Air Force and Marines. Not because we are journalists, but because we would be unidentified operators in a warzone. Sounds like a joke, but the practice in a warzone is shoot-first-ask-questions-later.

So, reporters who will be embedded with the troops will be "safer" than those that venture off on their own. What they can report may also be restricted, and their credentials can be revoked by the Pentagon at any time, for any reason. Those who chose not to be embedded risk being "targeted down" simply because of the difficulty in distinguishing who they are, not because the US is trying to kill independent journalists. Kate Adie says she is, "enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," and I agree. It sounds like the government wants to keep very tight control on the information coming out of Iraq. Sadly, with the Bush government, it's standard procedure.

Other links:

• Back to Iraq, a weblog by an independent journalist hoping to head to Iraq to report.
• Information about the AGM-88 HARM, "a supersonic air-to-surface tactical missile designed to seek and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems."
• Toronto Star on stories the American media isn't reporting
• Karlin Lillington's post with more of Kate Adie's comments

Thanks to everyone who wrote in, I appreciate the follow-up information.

Gavin's got a post with a partial transcript from an Irish radio show (also a link to download the entire show in Real Audio) in which Kate Adie (the BBC's chief news correspondent) makes some amazing statements regarding censorship of the American press in Iraq and Pentagon warning that reporters may be fired upon:

I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks – that is the television signals out of… Baghdad, for example – were detected by any planes …electronic media… mediums, of the military above Baghdad… they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists…

I haven't heard anything like this in the US media. Is this true they intend to fire upon the press? And are they prohibiting reporters who are disapproving of the war? I mean, I really find this hard to believe.