About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Saturday, October 03, 2009

People Can Handle the Truth About War

by Helen Thomas for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Friday, May 9, 2008

Some readers resented The Washington Post for publishing an Associated Press photograph of a critically wounded Iraqi child being lifted from the rubble of his home in Baghdad’s Sadr City “after a U.S. airstrike.” Two-year-old Ali Hussein later died in a hospital. As the saying goes, the picture was worth a thousand words because it showed the true horrors of this war. Neither side is immune from killing Iraqi civilians. But Americans should be aware of their own responsibility for inflicting death and pain on the innocent. The Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, said about 20 readers complained about the photo, while a few readers praised The Post for publishing the stark picture on Page 1.

Some mothers said they were offended that their children might see the picture, though one wonders whether their youngsters watch television and play with violent videos in a pretend world. From the start of the unprovoked U.S. “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the government tried to bar the news media from photographing flag-draped coffins of American soldiers returning from Iraq. A Freedom of Information lawsuit forced the government to release pictures of returning coffins. Howell said some readers felt the photo of the Iraqi boy was “an anti-war statement; some thought it was in poor taste.” Well, so is war. Howell said her boss, Executive Editor Len Downie, “is cautious about such photos.” “We have seldom been able to show the human impact of the fighting on Iraqis,” Downie was quoted as saying. “We decided this was a rare instance in which we had a powerful image with which to do so.” It’s unclear to me why this was deemed to be “rare.” After five years of war, there is finally one photo that is supposed to say it all? Howell said she checked hundreds of U.S. front pages on the Internet but saw the AP photo nowhere else.

That makes me wonder why the media have shied away from telling the story about Iraqi civilian casualties. News people and editors were more courageous during the Vietnam War. What are they afraid of now? Who can forget the shocking picture of the little Vietnamese girl running down a road, aflame from a napalm attack? And who can forget the picture of South Vietnamese Police Chief Nguyen Ngoc Loan putting a gun to the temple of a young member of the Viet Cong and executing him on a Saigon street? I don’t remember any American outcry against the media for showing the horror of war when those photographs were published. Were we braver then? Or maybe more conscience stricken? Of course, the Pentagon did not enjoy such images coming out of Saigon in that era. Most Americans found them appalling, as further evidence of our misbegotten venture in Vietnam. Americans rallied to the streets in protest and eventually persuaded President Lyndon Johnson to give up his dreams of re-election in 1968. Some Americans believe the media were to blame for the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. Nonsense.

Johnson knew the war was unwinnable, especially after the 1968 Tet offensive and the request by Army Gen. William Westmoreland for 200,000 more troops, in addition to the 500,000 already in Vietnam. The Pentagon made a command decision after the Vietnam War to get better control of the dissemination of information in future wars. That led then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to create an office of disinformation at the start of the Iraqi war. It was later disbanded after howls from the media. More recently, we have seen the Pentagon’s propaganda efforts take the form of carefully coaching retired generals about how to spin the Iraq war when they appear on television as alleged military experts. The New York Times’ revelations about those pet generals have cast a pall over their reputations. Too often in this war, the news media seem to have tried to shield the public from the suffering this war has brought to Americans and Iraqis. It’s not the job of the media to protect the nation from the reality of war. Rather, it is up to the media to tell the people the truth. They can handle it.

[It’s important that we know what war is really like. Because when we know what we are sending our men and women into we are more likely to pause and think about why we are fighting. It seems sometimes that we see bodies coming back from Afghanistan on a daily basis on the nightly news. Although not a daily event – thankfully – it most certainly seems that way. I always think, when I hear that yet another soldier has died, just what the hell we’re doing there in the first place. It seems to me at least that we are wasting the lives of our young men and women for – what exactly? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that question from anyone – military or civilian. If we saw the horror and futility of war on our news screens night after night we would have far fewer wars because we would know and be sickened by the consequences of going to war in far away places for……..what? ]

2 comments:

sirkolgate said...

I'd have to say that I don't think they should have posted the picture. It's far to easy to see the $$$ gain from such a 'graphic' and stirring image. The reason to find fault with the Washington Post is not because they posted the picture, but because doing so is generally poorly managed. I've never seen such pictures without feeling a strong bias that's far more political (or in this case 'paper moving') than it is humanitarian.

CK... you are right about this war being far beyond what it should have ever been. You're also right that our sons and daugthers, friends and neighbors, boyfriends and girlfriends are dying but I would not say needlessly. In fact you dishonor their efforts by saying so. They are keeping the terrorists busy, it's just not efficent.

I don't like war and I honestly think countries should put the money they spend on armies into creating very highly trained groups of 'elite' hitsquads and spy networks so that these types of insurgents are met with tactics very smiliar to their own. Small surgical strikes would do more to remove these hostile forces than a large, easy to see, hard to supply army. I feel it's better to rule these types of terrorists with fear than with power.

Aside from all that... I think we just need to remember that we have to do SOMETHING. We can not let these cells alone to spread their influence and devise their schemes. It's really a question of war in far away places... or war right here, because that's where it would come if we ignored it.

CyberKitten said...

sk said: You're also right that our sons and daugthers, friends and neighbors, boyfriends and girlfriends are dying but I would not say needlessly. In fact you dishonor their efforts by saying so. They are keeping the terrorists busy, it's just not efficent.

I don't think I'm dishonouring anyone by asking why they are there and what they are dying for.. and rather than keeping the terrorists busy, I think they are simply creating more with each passing day. I do not agree with the so-called War on Terror and if I did I would certainly not fight it this way! It is wasteful, stupid and frankly counter-productive.

I agree with the way you say that we need to fight this sort of conflict, struggle or whatever you want to call it. Terrorists are best fought by the police, the intelligence services and special forces, not tanks and high altitude bombers.

sk said: Aside from all that... I think we just need to remember that we have to do SOMETHING.

Funnily to me doing something looks a lot like doing anything - as long as its public so can be pointed to by politicians looking for the next election victory. Doing the something we're doing now is going to cause us problems for decades if not longer.

sk said: It's really a question of war in far away places... or war right here, because that's where it would come if we ignored it.

I'm certainly not saying that we should ignore threats against us. I'm saying that we should address the threats in an intelligent manner and not in a knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) TV sound bite politically stupid manner.