SECURITY AT NIMRUD:

The Sunday Telegraph published the following:

Why I fear for the safety of Iraq's historic monuments (via the IraqCrisis list and Francis Deblauwe)
By John Simpson
(Filed: 28/09/2003)

Last week, the magnificent and still largely unexcavated ruins at Nimrud, near the Iraqi city of Mosul, were declared a world heritage site. The next day the small detachment of American troops which had been guarding Nimrud from looters was withdrawn. Four thousand years of history and art now lie almost unprotected.

[...]

A neat, white-haired man introduced himself: he was Taha Ahmed Taha, one of the curators of Nimrud, and he showed us around the site. The damage had not been too bad: the curators had managed to rally the watchmen who protected the site, and chased the looters away. But not before the looters had chipped away the massive head of Ashurnasirpal from one of the major reliefs in the palace.

[...]

Now the Americans will be replaced by another group of watchmen. They will know the looters personally and the looters will know them. "They will be back," said Mr Taha. "They are only waiting for the Americans to go. Then they will take everything. And the watchmen will be too frightened to stop them."

* John Simpson is the BBC's World Affairs Editor

But the following was posted yesterday to the IraqCrisis list in response:

Dear Friends of Nimrud,

In response to the sensationalistic article in Sunday's Telegraph, we did some research into the security situation at Nimrud. Here are our findings:

According to the 101st Airborne�s Public Education Team assigned to
facilitate Ministry of Culture issues in Nineveh Province, where Nimrud is located, the US troops were only moved from the site after ample
alternative security had been arranged. That security consists of 30
Iraqi Facility Protection Service guards, who are well trained and very
reliable, plus the 7 Antiquities Department contract guards already at the site. The site is also checked on by the Antiquities Authority of Nineveh Province and by US Army patrols. I believe that this constitutes ample security, and should problems arise, help is close at hand.

I should also note that John Simpson's Telegraph article did not quote either of the antiquities officials with oversight responsibility for Nimrud, namely Manhal Jabr, Chief Antiquities Inspector for the Nineveh Archaeological Directorate, and Muzahim Mahmud, Overseer of the site of Nimrud. I do not know the authority or responsibilities of the person who is quoted, but I do not believe he is in a position to assess the security situation at Nimrud. Instead, it appears to me that his observations are included primarily in order to publicize the BBC program.

Please distribute this news as widely as you wish.

Best,
John Russell

Deputy Senior Advisor
Ministry of Culture
Coalition Provisional Authority
Baghdad

If I may say it, this is not untypical of the sloppy and biased reporting of the once great BBC. The Telegraph/BBC article is lazy: the writer did not contact the actual authorities in charge of the area to find out the details of the new guard; he simply talked to someone on the site, and on the basis of that person's self-certification and comments, wrote the article.

UPDATE (4 October): Anders Bell also commented on the original news story in his blog Phluzein. In the comments section I noted my post here and this has led to an interchange with a journalist named Rupert. I don't know if we'll ever come to a meeting of minds on this one, but I'm grateful to Rupert for taking the time to disagree with me.

UPDATE: My saving this post briefly as a draft while I added the first update seems to have yanked it from its original spot from a couple days ago and made it a current posting. I think I have it back in the right place now. Sorry for any confusion