Last year, British occupied Basra was portrayed as one of the relative success stories of the occupation and a model for the rest of Iraq. No longer. Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid remarked in a chat earlier today that Iran has more influence in Basra and most of Southern Iraq than the U.S. or Britain, and that Basra has become one of the riskiest places in Iraq for journalists to work.
Shadid Chat
In this passage, Shadid, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Iraq coverage, assesses how journalistic access to the country has changed since April 2004:
"I look back to that period between Saddam's fall in April 2003 and the Sadr uprising and first attack on Fallujah in April 2004 as a period of some of the most remarkable access I've ever encountered. In a way, it was the first time in 10 years that I felt you could report completely unencumbered in an Arab country. Back then, it was just a matter of endurance -- if you could spend the time, you could almost always get to the story. That's obviously not the case anymore. I think we're limited to Kurdish regions, parts of Baghdad and parts of southern Iraq. Even in southern Iraq, though, I've found parts of it becoming more and more dangerous as militias run by Shiite religious parties broaden their sway. Basra, in fact, has become one of the riskier places to work.
In response to a question about Iran, he writes:
"I am struck by the degree of Iranian involvement in southern Iraq. There's a definitely a sense in Basra, the second-largest city, that Iranian intelligence has a pretty free hand there....if you look at parts of the south, especially Basra, the Iranians have far greater sway than either the United States or Britain.".
Other notable answers:
Palatine, Ill.: With Saddam Hussein's removal, has there been a significant return of Iraqis who had left the country under Saddam's rule?
Anthony Shadid: Not really. In fact, I think there's been a lot of emigration from Iraq, especially to Jordan and Syria. There are whole neighborhoods these days in Amman that are basically Iraqi.
Clinton, Iowa: Is there any feeling by the Iraqi population, that the U.S. troops are helping them? Are we just seen as an occupation army as some have said?
Anthony Shadid: I always hesitate to speak with any authority about sentiments across the country. I'm sure there are places where people are happy with the U.S. presence, and there is no question that projects designed at improving life have been completed across Iraq. But I think if you honestly ask what is the prevailing sense about the presence of U.S. troops it would be this: We expected far more and we're frustrated with how little has been achieved. Life has improved in some ways, but worsened in so many others.
Vienna, Va.: Mr. Shadid,
Do you think the Insurgency is in it's last throes as Dick Cheney said few months ago? and secondly, how long do you think it will go on? Commander in Iraq recently said he sees the possibility of withdrawing significant number of troops in spring, what is your take on it?
Anthony Shadid: No, I don't think it's in its last throes. If anything, I'm struck by the ways in which it evolves, becoming more complex, more violent and more durable. My sense is that it will continue as long as their is a U.S. military presence. I think there may be a withdrawal in the spring, but I'm not sure that will reflect success against the insurgency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/29/DI2005082900740.html