David Lamb '58 has spent the better part of his working life at war. He began his reporting career covering the war in Vietnam, and during his 33 years as a foreign correspondent for The Los Angeles Times he has reported on everything from the Iranian revolution to the first Gulf War to the war on terror in Afghanistan. Lamb's reporting has been nominated eight times for a Pulitzer Prize. He is also the author of six books, including The Arabs: Journeys Beyond the Mirage.

One of the themes of your book The Arabs is the "gulf of misunderstanding" that exists between the West and the Arab world. In what ways did that gulf contribute to the start of the war?

Sadly, the gulf of misunderstanding between the West, particularly the United States, and the Arab world is still evident, but I don't believe it contributed to Gulf War II. The Bush administration appeared to not much care about Arab reaction one way or another. Unlike the first Gulf War, when Secretary of State James Baker spent weeks shuttling between Arab capitals to build support for a coalition, there was a notable absence of high-level U.S. visitations preceding the invasion of Iraq. The so-called Arab street and the American public seem now to believe the worst about each other.

L.A. Times correspondant David Lamb '58, author of The Arabs: Journeys Beyond the Mirage, spend two months in Cairo and Beirut covering Arab reactions to the war.

That's where the misunderstanding comes into play. I think we both lose. The general belief in the Arab world is that the United States has changed since 9/11, and not for the better. Their reaction to us is one more of disillusionment than hatred. As for Americans, too many simply dismiss Arabs as "a bunch of terrorists"-a stereotype that is obviously outrageously wrong.

How was the war reported in the Arab media, and how was it perceived by the people you interviewed? Were we in America watching a completely different war?

For once, I didn't cover a war from the eye of the storm. I spent my two-month assignment in Cairo and Beirut, writing about the Arab reaction to the war, the street demonstrations, the fragility of Arab regimes. The Arab media-like the people themselves-very much wanted to see the United States lose the war, or at least get bogged down in a Vietnam-style quagmire. Their coverage reflected this sentiment. There was a sense of deflation when Saddam Hussein proved to be just bluster and was in fact planning his escape at the very moment he was urging his countrymen to fight to the death for Baghdad.

In Cairo and Beirut, I had access to CNN, Fox and BBC as well as Al-Jazeera, the most popular Arab satellite network. The result was that I saw two different wars on TV. The Western networks focused largely on the British and American troops, and Fox, of course, was a cheerleader, making no attempt at journalistic objectivity. Al-Jazeera's main focus was Iraqi civilians. So one version of the war was a bit sanitized, the other particularly bloody. The truth was probably somewhere in between. But I thought Al-Jazeera made an important contribution to the coverage by presenting the Arab perspective.

What surprised you most?

I thought there would be a much more violent reaction on the Arab streets. The fact that it was relatively timid reflects the heavy control Arab regimes exercise over freedom of expression. I was also surprised at the depth of anti-American feelings, in all levels of society, even among people who traditionally have been strongly pro-American, and may well even have been educated in the United States. But at the same time I walked through some of Cairo's poorest and toughest neighborhoods with my translator and never felt in danger for a moment. I could interview anyone and was always accepted with graciousness, or at least tolerance. The attitude was sort of, "America's behavior repulses me, but won't you stay for tea?"

This was, in some respects, a whole new war for journalists. As someone who began his career in Vietnam, how did you regard the changes made possible by new technology, as well as by the embedding of reporters?

Technology has changed war-and the way wars are covered. A generation ago we trekked around battlefields carrying Olivetti portable typewriters. Faxes and cell phones didn't exist. We relied on telexes to file our stories and when you showed up at some little post office in Somalia to cover the Ogaden war against Ethiopia, you had to know how to "punch" your own telex tape.

And now? When I was at Tora Bora in Afghanistan, I called my wife in Virginia on my satellite phone to say hello. The connection was crystal clear. All this has made our lives easier-and more stressful. Our editors can reach us 24 hours a day. We sometimes have to file for our paper's website, in addition to filing our regular story. Competition between various publications and networks is keener.

The coverage we received during Gulf War II from 600 "embedded" reporters was astounding-war in real time. But as stunning as it was, I'm not sure it added greatly to our understanding of the ebb and flow of battle. What we saw were snapshots of a much larger picture. Overall, though, the process worked pretty well. Reporters had access that had been denied them in Gulf War I, and the U.S. military got more favorable coverage than it would have without "embeds." I don't think reporters' compromised their objectivity. The fact is, whether we are talking about Vietnam or Gulf War II, reporters traditionally write about American troops they cover with empathy. Policy is another matter.

What do you think the long-term consequences of this war will be on the Arab world?

The Arab psyche was deeply wounded by Saddam Hussein's hasty retreat. The Arabs' inability to stop the United States from going to war, the Arab League's dithering and the awareness that some Arab regimes denounced the war at the same time they were supporting it, directly or indirectly, left the Arabs feeling weak and divided.

Although I thought the war was ill-conceived-it turned out Hussein was no threat to anyone, least of all the United States-I can see a best-case scenario that presents opportunity. Certainly the Middle East, and particularly Iraq, is better off without Hussein. If Iraq becomes democratic and remains secular, if Syria reins in terrorist groups, if progress can be made on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then everyone stands to gain and the region becomes a more sensible place.

But those are big ifs. The Bush administration was obviously unprepared to handle the rocky postwar road and I am not yet convinced we'll have the staying power that reconstructing Iraq will demand.

Ordnance Officer Gregory Guba '98:
'We are still on alert'

Last December, Navy ensign Gregory Guba received both his civil engineering degree from Penn State and his commission as a naval officer. By February, he was on his way to the Eastern Mediterranean onboard the USS Anzio, a guided-missile cruiser. Together with the Anzio's 400-person crew, he spent the next 84 days at sea, first in the Mediterranean and then in the North Arabian Gulf.

Navy ensign Greg Guba '98 spent 84 consecutive days at sea as ordinace officer on the USS Anzio

What were the Anzio's objectives during the war?
We were the Air Defense Commander for both battle groups in the Eastern Mediterranean, the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the Harry S Truman. As the Air Defense Commander, we were in charge of monitoring the entire "air picture," including personal, commercial and military aircraft. We would make a determination of the threat level, and then go from there.

Generally we found out about what was going on with the land battle through CNN and Fox News. It was neat, though, to launch a missile and have an idea of where it was going and then watch the news a couple hours later to see what actually got hit.

The days of intense sea battles have slowly subsided and, needless to say, Iraq doesn't have much of a navy anyway. Additionally, the threat is so asymmetric now. We're focusing on preventing the terrorist threat that can happen with small-aircraft suicides and small-boat suicides (similar to what happened to the USS Cole), which is a harder threat to combat.

What are your responsibilities onboard the Anzio?
As ordnance officer, I deal a lot with the guns and ammunition. I also manage all the paperwork for onloading and offloading anything related to either of the above, including missiles and torpedoes. This on top of making sure that all weapons are in working condition, planning and executing live-fire training exercises, qualifying the crew to carry sidearms-a wide assortment of things.

Now that the war is over, what does your work consist of?
The war's being over doesn't necessarily mean that the animosity felt toward the U.S. military over here is any less intense. So we are still on alert.

Now we're in the Persian Gulf. The Anzio detached from Sixth Fleet and went through the ditch [the Suez Canal] into the Red Sea and all the way around to the North Arabian Gulf. As the crow flies, this was a distance of only a couple hundred miles, but since we had to go the long way it was much, much longer. Next we sat for a while off the coast of Iraq, where we had to deal with the heat and the haze from the oil fires for a month or so. The USS Nimitz (the fifth carrier that we have worked for this cruise) is still conducting flight operations, and there are still Marines that need to get off the beach, and there are still supply ships that need escorts out of the Gulf. The area is simply littered with small fishing dhows that are hard to detect and are potential threats. Naval presence is always active. We don't even stop moving to get gas-that transfer is conducted while underway.