Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Only Some Of Us Are At War -- The Rest Just Watch It On TV
For a bureaucratic policy, at least paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DOD Directive 5122.5 reads pretty clearly:
"Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member's prior written consent."
On the other hand, as David Carr of The New York Times recently pointed out, it has a considerable impact on what Americans see about the Iraq war.
Most soldiers, after all, don't prepare to go on missions by signing legal waivers permitting their filming if they get hit, and most journalists in Iraq — courageous as they have to be — wouldn't ask for them.
So the insulation between the small percentage of Americans directly involved in this war, and the huge majority that is the rest of us, gets a little thicker.
Nobody wants any American family to learn of a death by seeing it on the news — which didn't happen before this policy — and there are images, shatteringly common in Iraq, that nobody would ever put on a front page.
But this policy sounds like other rules for covering Iraq, like the one that forbids photographs of coffins coming home.
It's not that anyone's coffin is recognizable; it's just that a picture of 10 flag-draped coffins has a different impact than a simple news release saying that 10 more Americans died in Iraq on one day — Memorial Day.
It's the favorite refrain of the Bush administration that we're at war, but it's worth asking who "we" is. A tiny proportion of American families have a member who's served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the same people keep getting sent over and over again — now for third or even fourth tours of duty.
More literally, some of us are at war.
The rest of us are kept away from it, urged to support the troops but not to do anything in particular. Not to pay war taxes, not to buy war bonds, not to change anything about our lives, not even specifically to enlist to fight in it.
Watching sports over a weekend, Americans can see a lot of armed forces recruitment ads. But they're all about educational benefits and learning leadership skills; none of them mention that there's an actual war going on at the moment.
And, of course, nobody wants to mention that if there were a Vietnam-era draft in place, the history of the last five years would have been very different.
Of all the possible things that the people running this war could have learned from Vietnam — the problems of fighting in a country you don't understand, the difficulties of a land war in Asia, the need for a back-up plan because things will probably go wrong — the one that they absorbed most deeply is the need to control information about the war.
So there were limits on how the return of casualties could be covered, and limits on who could talk to reporters, and now limits on how photos and footage of U.S. casualties can be released.
The military has also declared limits on how soldiers are supposed to use YouTube.com.
There are other constrictions that have nothing to do with official policy.
At the worst moments of Vietnam, American reporters could walk the streets and talk to Vietnamese. In Iraq, that would be suicidal — not only for the reporter but also for the Iraqi talking to him. Last week, two Iraqi staff members of ABC News were murdered on their way home.
Between danger — more than 100 news media people have now died in Iraq — and expense, the number of reporters even trying to convey the reality of the war is dropping.
"This tiny remaining corps of reporters," says James Glantz, a Baghdad correspondent for the Times, "becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told."
Controlling the information limits our sense not only of the reality of the war, but of the cost paid by the Americans who fight it.
With the vast electronic resources of 2007, it's hard to control information as much as governments would like. But limiting it still raises the walls between the relatively few who fight this war — repeatedly — and the rest of us who see it on television.
Or who see parts of it on television.
© 2007 The Austin Statesman
12 Comments so far
Show AllIf Americans are going to pay for the war, they should be shown the war, including pictures of the hundreds of thousands of little children and women who have been killed and permanently disfigured in Bush's so called "war on terror".
The truth about the ugliness and horror of war SHOULD be reported by our so called "news" media. When the truth about it is widely known, the people will demand that diplomacy be used, not bombs and tanks and all that horror crap that the misleaders of our F'd up establishment apparently, hold so dearly.
The stateman is just another nasty snot-rag for the establishment.
===========================
WAR PICTURES
Pictures of Destruction and Civilian Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq
These photos are only of a very tiny fraction of the thousands of Iraqi Civilian Victims who have been terrorised, humiliated, injured, maimed
and killed through British and American bombing of civilian areas in various cities of Iraq. Due to insecurity, independent reporters could
not and still can not reach many areas to photograph and report the atrocities. Several independent reporters and journalists were deliberately bombed to prevent them reporting the atrocities.
WARNING: SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITIBLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH WEAK HEARTS
Robert Fisk:
http://snipurl.com/h6tm
Mind Prod:
http://snipurl.com/h6tp
----------------------------------
WAR PICTURES
Pictures of Destruction and Civilian Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq
These photos are only of a very tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilian Victims who have been terrorised, humiliated, injured, maimed and killed through British and American bombing of civilian areas in
various cities of Iraq. Due to insecurity, independent reporters could not and still can not reach many areas to photograph and report the atrocities. Several independent reporters and journalists were deliberately bombed to prevent them reporting the atrocities.
WARNING:
PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH WEAK HEARTS.
Robert Fisk: http://snipurl.com/h6tm
Mind Prod: http://snipurl.com/h6tp
i am sorry that 100 media personel have died in iraq. i realize that all are not embedded. the u.s. media has been in collusion with the u.s. government to santitize the war with great success. the media personel's deaths are for nought. if the message is getting out, it is in the world, because the wall of silence that surronds the u.s. is near perfect. aum33, thanks for the websites. David Sarasohn mistates. all of us are at war, not just a few. publishing in the austin american statesman is not much of a outlet to the public. mr. sarasohn's job as a journalist is to get the message out. how? i don't know. but, don't tell me that i am not at war without speaking to me first. the real victims of this occupation are the soldiers and civilians and maybe a few people who are trying to get the story.
david
please stop perpetuating the myth of the "war" we are in and write accurately of this conflict - it is an occupation, which followed an illegal invasion. continued support for its funding is DIRECTLY correlated with how this issue has been framed by the bush administration. and it's blatantly, criminally false. it is the duty of the media to be a watchdog not a cheerleader. it is the self-interest of those in power to maintain the myth. it should be in your interest to expose and eradicate it.
born2bwild..... thanks for reminder. occupation not war. word choice IS important. the watchdogs have been nuetered.
There is no war. There is an illegal occupation, the result of an illegal, aggressive invasion. We have not declared war on any country on Earth. We are not at war with the country of Iraq, with Sunnis, with Shia, with Kurds, nor is there even such a thing as a "war" on the tactic of terrorism.
And that's the reason most of America has tuned out - not because the President said to go shopping (he's not a cult leader,) it's because, somewhere inside, most are aware of the truth that what's going on IS NOT A WAR, and we are too ashamed to face it, and feel helpless to stop it.
I think all those people who support Bush and the invasion should be made to pay for it. For example, if they go into a fast food restaurant and order say three cheeseburgers they should only be allowed to have one. When they pull into a petrol station to fill up they they should only be allowed say a quarter of a tank of fuel or less.
And if they protest tell them that rationing is required to support the 'war' effort. If they continue to protest accuse them of not supporting the troops. And if they stiill continue to protest them accuse them of being a supporter of terrorism. Turn their own retoric against them and see them change their tune.
This is not my war. I opposed it before it ever started and I am mortified that it is being waged in my name. Everyone who still supports this madness should be forced to look at the photos posted by aum33. Every single one of them.
I agree with frank1569. Some people don't even know a "war" is taking place. They are only technically correct because they're ignorant and don't have a clue that a military plundering operation is ongoing. It doesn't even have the psychological impact of "war". People know that Sadam wasn't a threat, even if subconsciously; they know that even if Iraqi oil is interrupted, it will come from somewhere else, even if they have to pay a premium for it. So what is there, really, to keep the image of "war" alive in the minds of Americans?
In WWII every man, woman, and in some cases child, knew that if Hitler and the Japanese won there would be some pretty heavy shit coming down the line for them PERSONALLY. Nothing like that is the case now. "War" has been sanitized for the American Idol (I mean Idle) public.
Unfortunately, judging by the meagre numbers of hardy souls that have nbeen protesting the war, I doubt TV pictures will cause any great difference, the most of American people simply do care about the Iraqis, now if there was a Draft then you'll see the difference.
BTW I don't intend on belittling the efforts so far by the Americans with a conscience who have been protesting, marching and trying to highlight the evils of the current administration. They have been the true patriots, trying to protect their country and the rest of the world, I only wish there were more of you. Actually feel a bit disgusted at the way Cindy Sheehan has been treated.
I can't recall that there were very many sacrifices made on the scale of WWII, such as rationing or victory gardens, during the Viet Nam War. People say that only the troops are at war in Iraq, but it is really no different than 1970, except the news coverage, of course. We didn't sacrifice gas or groceries then, either, but we made our voices heard about that uneccessary war but not like we are doing now.
The reason that we poured out into the streets in the early 70's is because people had a secure future and were comfortable in the middle class. Things are not that way now. There isn't a manufacturing base. There's nowhere to turn if you loose whatever security you've managed to hang on to in these times.
Things are shakey these days and people just stick to their letter writing.
We are still all at war - all of us. Doing nothing is doing something. It is your decision.