Foreign Coverage:
Central Asia and the Middle East
With Phil Bennett
Assistant Managing Editor, Foreign News
The Washington Post
Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2002; Noon EST

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor for Foreign News Phil Bennett recently returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. While overseas he met with the reporters on the front lines -- covering the war on terrorism, the changing political climate and the humanitarian situations -- to coordinate future Post coverage.

Bennett was online Wednesday, Feb. 20 at Noon EST, to discuss his visit to the region and The Post's coverage of the war on terrorism.

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Arlington, Va.: Given the Pentagon clampdown on information and its denials, e.g., of civilian casualties, don't you think that news organizations like The Post have an added responsibility to seek out information on the ground in Afghanistan about things our military is trying to cover up? Have any of your reporters been threatened or detained by U.S. military personnel (or locals working at their behest)?

Phil Bennett: This has been an unusual war, and unusual to cover. More than a dozen Post correspondents have reported from inside Afghanistan since mid-September, and each of them has dealt with issues of safety, secrecy, and geography that have separated us at various moments from what has really been going on. It's my impression that in important ways reporting about the war -- not only in Afghanistan, but elsewhere -- is entering a new phase, when we are finding clearer access to details that were more elusive during the first several months. The increased reporting about civilian casualties is one example of this; there are others too. But by no means have all or even most obstacles to good journalism evaporated. Last week one of our reporters, Doug Struck, was detained at gunpoint by U.S. troops near the city of Khost as he tried to investigate an air strike on a former al Qaeda camp that we reported killed civilians. He was told by a U.S. soldier that if he went on to the site of the bombing he would be shot. That was an extraordinary threat, a sign of how unusual the conflict is.

Washington, D.C.: Phil,

Is it your sense that the United States is more highly regarded in that part of the world since Sept. 11, or less highly regarded?

Phil Bennett: I just returned from two weeks in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan; hardly representative places on a tour of global public opinion, but telling for the sharpness and depth of feeling about the United States. I found two things that might seem contradictory to many Americans: profound sympathy and identification witht the victims of the terror attacks of Sept. 11 and an almost inexpressible hostility towards the U.S. response, especially to the words of American political leaders, since then. This is sometimes an astonishing and vexing juxtaposition, and hard to take apart. Typical of the way people talked about it was a conversation I had outside of Riyadh with a young dentistry student, who had been the United States and had a sister in La Jolla, California. Searching for words to get at what he was trying to say, he finally blurted out, "I really hate America a little bit."
Clearly, this isn't a universal view, but there's the complexity in it that I think you would find in Europe and parts of Asia. America is not a place that inspires neutrality, at least for the moment.

College Park, Md.: How is Saudi Arabia dealing with terrorists among its population? Is it trying to prevent an recurrence of Sept. 11 in which most of the hijackers were its nationals?

Phil Bennett: The Saudi leadership has been in deep denial about the involvement of Saudi citizens in the Sept. 11 attack, and, judging from the number of Saudis detained in Afghanistan, as foot soldiers in al Qaeda's network. I was surprised to be asked, over and over, why the American media insisted on describing so many of the hijackers as Saudis; was it part of an organized campaign to destabilize the U.S.-Saudi relationship or even the kingdom itself? Replying that we did this because the hijackers were Saudis did not seem a persuasive response. I do sense that the Saudis have awoken to the threat that radicalism nurtured in the country represents not only to other countries but to the kingdom itself, and that promoting intolerance or hatred of the West is to create a boomerang that will return home. What action this realization causes is a very good story.

McLean, Va.: Where do you think the War on Terror will be in six months, both in terms of where georgaphically our forces will be engaged and in terms of what status will have been accorded present and future GITMO detainees?

Phil Bennett: I think we're already in the next phase of the war. That is, the operations in the Philippines and potentially in Indonesia or elsewhere in SE Asia are already on the table, some of them developed with information that originated in Afghanistan. The administration is actively pursuing next steps, most prominently in Iraq; identifying three countries not linked directly to Sept. 11 as an "axis of evil" clearly suggests a broadening of the scope and goals of the conflict. I don't know what happens to those detained in Guantanamo; my guess would be that they will be there for some time.

London, England: How does the relationship between China and the Central Asian states affect U.S. policy in the region?

Phil Bennett: This is an important and largely unexplored issue. It will be interesting to see if if comes up explicitly during President Bush's visit tomorrow to Beijing (I would bet not). What seems evident is that a strategic shift is underway in Central Asia that marks a decisive shift away from the old Soviet/Russian patronage, while also frustrating China's new and developing interest in the region. If a U.S. military presence takes root in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and elsewhere between Turkey and China, it could have profound effects on the region and extension of U.S. power.

Orlando, Fla.: What did you emphasize to your reporters abroad? (Beyond safety and the usual need for fairness and accuracy). Also, what sort of career advice would you give to a reporter interested in foriegn coverage?

Phil Bennett: Safety has been a huge concern for us in Afghanistan. We have reporters working constantly in places where journalism can is a dangerous vocation, such as Colombia, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere. In Afghanistan there have been a number of unusual factors, among them the lack of cooperation from U.S. forces that has required journalists to set off on their own into extremely hostile territory. We've had some very intrepid and brave correspondents on the scene, and sometimes we have to stifle our impulse here to sound like a parent. But we've made clear to everyone that safety is our first concern, our prime directive. No story is worth dying for. So: we encourage reporters to think through their travel plans carefully and discuss them with us. In some cases, they have travelled with an armed escort, which of course we don't like to do.
For reporters interested in going abroad, my first advice is to find ways first to develop your journalism skills. Being a foreign correspondent requires extraordinary talent as a reporter, but also the ability to produce narrative stories, analysis, and long-form journalism. Once you get a hold of those, nurturing curiosity about the world is essential. It's often what separates the great correspondents.

Arlington, Va.: How effective is the new Afgan Administration on uniting the various warlords throughout the country?

Phil Bennett: I and others from The Post went to see Hamid Karzai in the palace in Kabul, an incredibly, drafty warren of a building, with visitors and supplicants camped in the outer office of Afghanistan's chief executive. He's a very engaging person, and persuasive in his way. During the conversation, he made an extraordinary statement: "I will do away with warlordism in Afghanistan." Today, this seems an impossible task. During recent weeks, Karzai has been forced to confront even warlords of his own making. He is far from being able to challenge those who control large portions of the country with their own armed forces, such as Gen. Dostum in Mazar-i Sharif or Ismael Kahn in Herat. I don't think anyone can imagine progress towards this without massive resources under the control of the Kabul government. Such resources do not exist; I wonder if they will. For now, though, there is no such thing, in practice, as an Afghan government; simply a man who wants to lead one.

Cumberland, Md.: You just indicated that the last of U.S. cooperation has been a problem for journalists. But what is so special about journalists that they believe that the U.S. military should act as their bodyguards? Isn't there quite a bit of hubris in this point of view.

Phil Bennett: I wouldn't want the U.S. military to act as bodyguards for journalists. Traditionally, including during the Civil War and during conflicts since, American journalists have had access to battlefield troops so as to report more clearly and accurately to readers about wars in which the country is engaged. The war in Afghanistan is a departure from this tradition. Personally, this bothers me because it puts reporters at risk as they continue to pursue stories in the field, in the dark. But more importantly, its influence on what the public learns about the conduct and progress of the war is deeply compromised. It's not a black and white issue in the particulars: the press in wartime has also submitted to censorship and other means of protecting military operations. We have agreed to such measures in the past, and stuck to our word. But in the larger picture, conducting a war beyond the view of the public is something that an independent press is bound to protest.

College Park, Md.: While in Saudi Arabia, did you speak with both Saudi and American press corps members, or only American reporters covering the situation?

Phil Bennett: In Saudi Arabia I and two colleagues spoke almost exclusively to Saudi officials, including Crown Prince Abdullah. It is a very closed system, as you might know. Our reporters do conduct independent work about the country -- witness the recent very good series on U.S.-Saudi relations by Bob Kaiser and David Ottoway-- but often we are denied visas.

Berkeley, Calif.: Among President Bush's "evil axis" of terrorism (North Korea, Iran, Iraq), which do you think is the most dangerous to the United States and why?

Phil Bennett: This is a good assignment for in-depth reporting. One of the objections to the use of that term is that it lumped together three very different countries, each with its own set of issues and challenges. Iran, for example, is engaged in a dramatic and high-stakes internal confrontation over reform of its political system, in which the prospects of improved relations with the United States is a key issue. What this question goes to in my view is how the United States and other countries should address the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. There are political, diplomatic, intelligence, and military aspects to this; in the current climate the military approach receives the most attention. It's something we need to do more work on; there's hardly a bigger more ugly question out there than wmd.

Washington, D.C.: Why is The Post coverage of the Pearl kidnapping so different than the coverage of the other news outlets? The Post has depicted a depressing account of what may have happened while the other news outlets continue to report the official Pakistani, possibly over-optimistic, line. Is there any cause for hoping that Pearl is still alive?

Phil Bennett: I'm not aware of the difference you're raising. Everyone hopes that Daniel Pearl is alive and will be released soon; his case is horrifying on many levels, starting with the fact that he is an innocent man. We have reported on successive days the different and sometimes contradictory reports about his welfare, especially from the prime suspect in the case, who was taken into custody last week. One senses many mysteries at the heart of this case, but they all add up to the same injustice.

Karachi, Sindh: How do you see Kashmir problem which has been a subect of Indian state sponsored terrorism, and do you think that India is willing to talk with Pakistan to solve this long standing issue and stop human rights violations in Kashmir?

Phil Bennett: The Kashmir issue is one of the interlocking problems that seem to simultaneously influence Indo-Pak relations, the stability of both governments, and the war on terrorism. Our reporting has found a credibility deficit on both sides, often owing to domestic politics. Gen. Musharraf has given contradictory signals about what Pakistan plans to do about groups that support violence in Kashmir. India shows no real signs of being ready to discuss the core issues.

San Rafael, Calif.: There have been suggestions in the press thoughout the Afghan campaign that access to hard news is controlled and/or limited by the U.S. military to an unprecedented degree. Please comment in light of your recent trip, and also on how, if at all, this issue relates to the formation of the "Office of Strategic Influence."
Thank you.

Phil Bennett: Hello San Rafael. I think we'll see over the next weeks and months an increasing access to this story, both in Afghanistan and in other places. Some of the stories will involve doing reporting that we wished we'd done months ago but are just getting at now. Others will involve getting deeper inside the decision and policymaking process in Washington. Both readers and journalists have learned a lot about these related issues and related places in the last few months. I think we'll be able to explore them more intelligently in the weeks to come.
Thanks to all.

Automatically Update Page    |   Get New Responses   |   Submit Question