We should toast the reporters who are staying behind to cover the war

President George W. Bush has suggested that journalists should be pulled out of Baghdad. You may ask what business it is of his. On the other hand, perhaps he knows better than most of us what is likely to happen to the Iraqi capital over the next few days and weeks. There has been talk of Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard making a last stand there, and drawing coalition troops into a fight for the city which they might not easily win. Fanciful comparisons have been made with Stalingrad. Even if there is no conflagration, Allied aircraft are expected to target government buildings with ‘precision bombs’. We can recall from the assault on Belgrade during the Kosovo war that these bombs are not always as precise as they are cracked up to be.

Editors and foreign editors are therefore faced with a problem. Do they ask their journalists to remain in Baghdad under the watchful eye of the Iraqi ministry of information, facing risks which, though difficult to quantify, may be considerable? News organisations are split down the middle. The Daily Telegraph has decided to pull out its man, and the Times has asked Janine di Giovanni to pack her bags, reportedly much to her annoyance. The Financial Times is also withdrawing the ‘stringer’ whom it shares with the BBC, partly because it fears that she would not be able to operate freely. In the other camp, the Guardian is expected to have Suzanne Goldenberg in Baghdad, while the Independent’s legendary Robert Fisk has arrived in town. The Daily Mail still has two reporters there. The Sunday Times has a journalist called Hali Jaber who, as a Lebanese, might conceivably be at less risk were the Iraqi authorities to turn nasty. The BBC will probably reduce its correspondents in the city to two or three: Andrew Gilligan is still there, and reports for us this week.