Pictures of War

(Revised 05-Mar-06)

The human psychie can change quite drastically when supporting a position and realizing the consequences or benefits of that position. In the beginning we knew that removing Saddam Hussein from power was in the best interests of the "coalition of the willing." We knew that the process of bringing about democratic change in the country of Iraq will be long and difficult. Even despite this, we start to question the leadership and decisions of our civilian and military leaders the moment U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians start to die. Past examples include Somalia where 18 soldiers and two Blackhawk helicopters were lost while capturing two Somali clan officials on Oct 3, 1993.

The video of a dead U.S. soldier dragged through the streets of Mogadishu really damaged the American psychie. It was one of the factors that led to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia.

For Vietnam, the public saw three famous photos. (link) The young naked girl, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, running down the street when a South Vietnamese plane mistakenly dropped its flaming napalm on South Vietnamese tropps and civilians. (link) The second was the execution of a Viet Cong officer with a shot to the head by the South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brig. Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan. (link) A third photo really shocked the American public when it shows women and children massacred at the town of My Lai, a South Vietnamese village.

While those photos shocked the public, another Vietnam war photo emerged that moved the nation. In 1973 photographer Chick Harrity snapped a photo which showed a baby girl, named Tran Thie Het Nhanny, lying in a cardboard box next to her brother, who begged on the streets of Saigon. When the photo was published in February of that year, it inspired Americans to raise money to bring the baby to the U.S. to undergo surgery to correct a congenital heart defect.

Often from time to time, Americans are deeply shocked by the images of the dead and the destruction of property, but why are we continuing to be surprised by this? Perhaps it is true by some analysts that the public still believes that "death on the battlefield was glorious and heroic." In virtually every American war that has followed, journalists have struggled whether to take or publish, photos of the dead and wounded. In World War I and early World War II, military censors blocked most photos of American losses. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the War Department, and the Office of War Information changed that view in 1943. University of Maryland journalism professor Susan Moeller, author of "Shooting War: Photography and the American Experience of Combat," stated that the decision was made because Americans needed a less-sanitized view to understand the true risks and costs of the war.

It helped usher in a new era of frank war photography, the height of it was reached during the war in Vietnam. Unlike today's "embed" photographers in Iraq, they did not have to sign agreements with the military and they submitted to few rules.

Some have blamed the media for undercutting support for America's wars. It is obvious that it will influence the Pentagon's handling for future wars. When the Caribbean island of Grenada was invaded in 1983, the Reagan administration left reporters and photographers behind. It fueled a backlash and the military agreed to allow limited access to a pool of media representatives (no doubt sanctioned by the military) for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. However, the arrangement allowed a minimal view of the fighting. Fortunately, one photo did manage to get through the censors and was published on every American newspaper in the country. (link) The photo showed wounded Army Sgt. Ken Kozakiewicz of Orchard Park, NY, crying aboard a medevac helicopter after learning on February 28, 1991, that the body bag to his left contained a fellow tank crewman.

The photo was first held by the military because it was of a sensitive nature. Kozakiewicz's father, who had been in one of the first American military units in Vietnam said that the military "was trying to make us think that this is antiseptic. But this is war. Where is the blood and the reality of what is happening over there? Finally we have a picture of what really happens in war." For him, showing his son grieving over the death of a fellow fighter gave added meaning to the soldier's death.

Today, technology and war have improved to a point where pictures and videos can be shown right after the event has occurred or in real-time. "Embed" photographers are sent along with military units. Independent photographers and news agencies roam the battle zones. While we may show battle-hardened soldiers like the "Marlboro Man," we now refrain from publishing pictures of the dead coming back, either by voluntary or involuntary means.

The Bush administration claims it would be a public relations catastrophe to show American war dead so officials banned the media from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media pundits have repeatedly denounced the Al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casulaties and American prisoners of war. But then the scandal at Abu Ghraib where photos showed American soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners seriously damaged the image of the U.S. military, and it pretty much shut up the U.S. media for a bit.

Retired General Michael Marchand, who served as assistant judge advocate general for the Army, said in 2005, "Two years ago, if somebody had said our soldiers would do these things to detainees and take pictures of it, I would have said that's a lie. What soldiers do, I'm not sure I can guess anymore."

USA TODAY - A look at Abu Ghraib

Maybe soldiers thought that during a war, anything can be done. There are no rules of engagement (yes there is), or there is no Geneva Convention (oh wait it does exist). Perhaps war brings out the evil side of our human minds. When these U.S. soldiers said that they abused Iraqi prisoners "just for fun," does that even surprise us? Who knows if one half of the country was shocked by that, or the other half was applauding them. We are definitely a hypocritical country.

Today, it may not even be possible to see published pictures taken in Iraq and Afghanistan that are similar to those taken in Vietnam or Somalia. Perhaps it is true that the American psychie just do not want to see the results of their actions. Perhaps it is in our nature not to even think of it because we assumed we have the most advanced technological-capable military and war casaulties would be minimal. Publishing the pictures and figures on the dead and wounded is now considered to be politically incorrect.

In any case, we should be exposed to the realities of war. If we choose to participate in a war, we should know the risks and costs of it. We should not be afraid to see what war does. Yes, it is sickening and nauseating, but that's what we chose to do.

Uncensored war pictures

Crisis Pictures (link)

Very, very dirty pictures (link)

Chelseagreen.com (link)

nowthatsfuckedup.com - I chose not to activate this link, you can type it in yourself. It is a sex-themed web site, but nestled between those forums is a place where American military personnel are alleged to have posted grisly war images from Iraq and Afghanistan.