Preston Mendenhall '88 spent four months covering the war for MSNBC

Where were you reporting from, and what did you witness? [Prior to the start of the war,] I traveled to Syria to report from Damascus-a fascinating assignment during the U.N. Security Council's deliberations on Iraq. Syria, the only Arab country on the Security Council (occupying a nonpermanent seat), sees itself as the Arab world's "conscience" in a region highly skeptical of America's intentions in the Middle East.

From Syria, I traveled to Tehran for a week, reporting on Iranian reaction to the building war. I drove from Tehran to the border with Iraq, [a journey of] about 10 hours, and crossed over to the Kurdish area of northern Iraq on March 1. It was there that I reported until the war began. Once Baghdad fell, in quick succession I traveled to Kirkuk, Mosul, and Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, as they fell. I reached each city before the American troops. I spent time in Baghdad once the north-south road was cleared.

Because of my location in the north, much of my focus was on the Kurds, who were very supportive of the war. There was a tremendous sense of disbelief among the Kurds that the war was actually happening. It was a moment they had long feared and hoped for. Their fears were driven by the possibility that Saddam would retaliate against them for the American attack-an all-too-real worry after the Iraqi leader's chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds in the 1980s. Still, they were with the U.S. endgame. They deftly pushed aside their own internal political bickering to back the U.S. invasion. Of the disparate ethnic and religious groups that make up Iraq, the Kurds-with their strong connections in Washington and a decade spent living outside Saddam's control-are probably the most prepared to face the country's future under U.S. influence.

What, for you, were the most significant events or developments you reported on? What frightened you most? Surprised or moved you?
The most significant development in the north was the fall of Kirkuk, a city with a kaleidoscope of ethnic groups manipulated for decades by Saddam's regime in order to change the area's demographic in favor of Arabs who supported the leadership. Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, was also a great unknown. Although the U.S. forces entered Tikrit without a fight, there are many people in the region, considered Saddam's heartland, who believe the Iraqi dictator will return.

In most of the conflicts I have covered, hindsight-and peace-offer a clear look at what the real dangers were during the war. Iraq is no different. For me, the possible use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam, who had widely employed them in the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraqi civilians, was the most frightening aspect of the battle. Not far behind, however, was the execution of the war itself. Since the first Gulf War, traditional frontlines, at least in conflicts involving U.S. forces and their technology, have disappeared. There are no frontlines. The precision strikes with "smart bombs" can pose more danger, precisely because they can hit anywhere, anytime. Battlefields once had well-established frontlines that took days, weeks or months to budge. Now the enemy's positions collapse in a matter of minutes, in front and behind and on either side-and in no particular order.

Liberation is a moving experience. In Iraqis, I came across elation, dumbfoundedness, disbelief, shock, joy, suspicion and sorrow-all the emotions were raw, and each individual had his own reasons for feeling them. Because we were arriving in many cities before U.S. troops, many Iraqis saw us as part of the liberation. We were taken to the tribal elders and fed vast meals of chicken and lamb. Budding post-Saddam politicians wanted to know how to get in touch with the U.S. State Department or how to spell their party's name in English.

From your perspective, what have been the pros and cons of "embedded" journalism? Did it help provide a more complete picture of the war? In what ways, if any, did it compromise reporters' objectivity?
When possible, every aspect of a story should be covered. "Embedding," if it is an option, should never be excluded. However, news organizations that decide to embed their reporters have a duty to cover the story independently as well. In a large organization like NBC, that was possible. We had dozens of journalists traveling with the military and dozens working independently. We were able to provide a complete picture of the war. We struck a balance.

Objectivity is every reporter's goal. Whether you are embedded or operating outside military reporting rules, the objective is the same. Whether the information is coming from the Iraqi Ministry of Information or the CENTCOM briefing room in Qatar, journalists are the filter. Embedded journalists were restricted in what they could report, but they still were asking the questions that needed to be asked. And that's important.

In this war, I believe the awesome technology used by the media kept the battlefield commanders honest. Information flow very nearly outpaced the war. CENTCOM gave briefings around the clock. The Pentagon gave its own spin in Washington. There was a constant need by the Bush administration to react to media reports coming constantly from the field. For me, that means journalists were successful in their missions.

What comes next, for both the Iraqi people and the Americans stationed there? For you yourself?
Iraq is fortunate that, unlike Kosovo or Afghanistan, to mention recent American military interventions, the country has a revenue-generating commodity: oil. But while the revenue stream will help postwar Iraq, the battle over Baghdad's energy resources could also prove Iraq's downfall. The list of creditors is long. Iraqis will have to be put at the front of the line. With so many competing interests, it's difficult to see that happening.

The most fulfilling moment for me as a journalist is to revisit a war zone several months, and then again several years, after the conflict. The changes are stunning. I plan to return to Iraq.

U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte '56:
'Sometimes diplomacy's job is to clarify differences even when they cannot be resolved'

As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte '56 has been at the epicenter of the international debate over the war in Iraq, both in the months leading up to the war and then again this spring as the U.N Security Council turned its attention to the rebuilding of Iraq. A career diplomat, Negroponte has previously served as U.S. ambassador to Honduras, Mexico and the Philippines.

Supporting Iraq's Liberation and Reconstruction at the United Nations

U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte '56 had been at the epicenter of the international debate over Iraq. "My role has been to articulate the U.S. position in close coordination with the secretarty of state, the national security advisor, and the president himself."

The world community's concerns about the regime of Saddam Hussein go back decades, but Saddam triggered what came to be a sustained regional and international crisis with his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Twelve years later, President Bush decided to challenge this state of affairs in an address to the United Nations General Assembly. On September 12, 2002, he called on the U.N. to hold Saddam accountable for his numerous violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international law.

As a consequence, both Saddam and the U.N. were put to a test. Saddam is now gone from power, but the U.N. is playing an important part in Iraq's reconstruction and reintegration into the community of nations.

During the debate leading up to military action and thereafter, my role at the U.N. was to articulate the U.S. position in close coordination with the secretary of state, the national security advisor and the president himself. On a day-to-day basis, I met with other Security Council members, representatives of the Arab states, members of the coalition that supported the U.S./U.K. intervention and the U.N. membership in general.

The negotiations that led to the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, and the debate over Iraq's subsequent lack of compliance with that and previous resolutions, occupied many hours every day. This was important for the people of Iraq, and it was important for the U.N., too. For too long, U.N. Security Council resolutions had been honored in the breach.

The United States did not act unilaterally in Iraq, nor did we contravene any international conventions. It acted with U.K. and Australian forces on the ground and with the logistical and political backing of numerous allies throughout the world. U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990 provided the legal authority under international law for this action. It is true that we disagreed with some traditional allies on how to deal with the repressive and brutal Hussein regime, but sometimes diplomacy's job is to clarify differences even when they cannot be resolved.

The passage of Security Council Resolution 1483, which lifted the sanctions on Iraq and reaffirmed the coalition's commitment to working with the U.N., was a very positive step. Resolution 1483 also established the position of a U.N. special representative who will play a vital role in Iraq's reconstruction. The United States welcomes this development.

As I write, we are seeing incremental improvements in the security situation in Iraq. Set-backs are inevitable, but so is progress. In the meantime, we are working hard to get the local economy moving again. This will be greatly aided by the Security Council's lifting of sanctions under Resolution 1483. Iraq needs to be able to mobilize all of its natural and human resources as a means of speeding the return of an internationally recognized, representative government. When that occurs, the liberation will be complete.