The Realities of War

Before my lights go out, I have to post about something that I’ve been following for a little while.

About a month ago, US Marine LCpl. Joshua Bernard was fighting the Taliban in the Helmand province of Afghanistan when he was mortally wounded. AP photographer Julie Jacobson was embedded with the Marine unit during the firefight that claimed Bernard’s life, and as he lay dying, with his fellow Marines trying desperately to save his life, Jacobson snapped a photo. It likely isn’t the first time a photographer has taken such a picture. This time, however, the AP decided to run the photo.

They tried to excuse themselves by bragging that they waited until Bernard had been laid to rest to publicize the photo. What they didn’t reveal, though, was that the decision to run the image of the dying Marine was made despite the wishes of the Bernard family. Let’s forget that Defense Secretary Gates admonished AP head Tom Curley “in the strongest language I can” not to post the image for the world to see. To me, that is almost a side issue. Bernard’s family, those who had the highest rights to what they had experienced in losing their son, explicitly told the AP that they did not want the image to be published.

In the end, AP senior managing editor John Danisczewski said, “We understand Mr. Bernard’s anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war. The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice.” Jacobson, the photographer, excused herself from wrongdoing with statements typical of her profession–that the journalists are there to record the realities of war, this is part of that reality, and the people need to know. Oh, and it was also important for her to point out that when she allowed Bernard’s fellow Marines to look at her photos of the firefight, none of them showed outward anger: “none of them complained or grew angry about it. They understood that it was what it was. They understand, despite that he was their friend, it was the reality of things.” She said that “to ignore a moment like that simply would have been wrong.”

Let’s talk about what’s wrong. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Technically, they have the right to publish whatever they want as long as they’re not giving away classified information or posting the images before the wounded’s family has been notified. But does the fact that they have the right to mean that they should? When they ask the family for permission to run the photos and the family unequivocally says NO, what on Earth could possess these people to think themselves so much better, so much more enlightened, to believe that they had a moral imperative to go against said family’s wishes and let the whole world see the last moments of a hero’s life?

Greg Mitchell, writing for the Huffington Post, had the tacit nerve to talk disdainfully about the press’ previous refusal to “carry graphic images of the true cost of our wars, to Americans, in Iraq and Afghanistan — fatally wounded U.S. soldiers and Marines.” Since when does the freedom of the press give you or anyone else the right to exploit these incidents for your own political purposes? It may give you the ability, but what makes you think it’s okay? Because you have some kind of moral duty to let people know what the realities of war are?

If you are so interested in showing the realities of war, then be more balanced. Show the reality of allowing a despot to remain in control. Show more pictures of the mass graves uncovered during the Iraq war, graves containing hundreds–sometimes thousands–of Saddam’s victims. Show pictures of the women, homosexuals and children executed by the Taliban for crimes such as being in public without a male relative escort…or even for the crime of being a rape victim. Show the pictures you’ve refused thus far to show of those executions because, as Kathleen Carroll said, “we don’t distribute content that is known to be offensive, with rare exceptions.”

If you’re so interested in showing the realities of all that’s wrong with our world, then why not focus on issues closer to home? Between 15,000 and 16,000 will have died in alcohol-related MVA’s by the end of 2009. Between 30,000 and 35,000 will have died by suicide, with most of the completed suicides involving the individuals either shooting or hanging themselves. Guess what the leading cause of accidental death is for children? Drowning. In what I do for a living, I have seen these and many other major issues that plague our society today tear lives apart. The most gut-wrenching sound I have ever heard is not the crunch of metal and glass, not the last gurgling breaths of a gangbanger riddled with bullets and blood pouring from his mouth, nor the sound of dismembered body parts being pulled from the pavement.

It is the anguished cry of a mother or father who has just been told that their child is dead.

There is nothing in this world that can bring me to the brink of losing my calm and cool the way that sound can. The mother who woke to the sound of her only son shooting himself, the father who searched for his youngest son only to find him face-down in the murky backyard pool, and the parents who had to be notified at an ungodly hour that their teenaged daughter had been killed by a drunk driver will remain with me forever. I cannot fathom trying to show that couple a picture of their daughter after the collision that took her life. Because I have experienced their pain, I cannot imagine what manner of extreme greed could possibly drive any reporter to show that sort of thing to any parent–and then ask to publicize it.

If you holier-than-thou pricks are so concerned with putting the realities of what’s wrong with our world out there for everyone to see, then start with the wars in our own neighborhoods. Let’s see you post pictures of the scores of good people being killed every day by things we have begun to ignore. Let’s see you talk about that with the same zeal with which you ardently preach about the realities of war.

Until you are capable of doing that, tell yourself whatever the hell you want if it’ll help you sleep better…but spare us the sanctimony. What you did to the Bernards was wrong, plain and simple, and no amount of hiding behind your First Amendment rights will absolve you of that. This wasn’t about right and wrong for you. It was about what would pull in the readers, and with them the money. You’re a brood of jackals waiting to feed on the wounded.

I hope you choke on it.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Realities of War

  1. Very well said. Everyone at the AP should read your blog. Especially the succubus Julie Jacobson and her pimp Curley, head of the Associated Press.

    Until our self-aggrandizing Main Stream Media stops using AP for their content, and instead form a different syndicate which can hire away the good freelance reporters and photographers, these despicable flaps of putrid skin will not suffer the consequences they so richly merit.

  2. this is not the first time – just the most recent.

    A milblogger who lost her husband a few years ago was figuratively spat upon by Rosie O’Donnell, who used the footage of her dead, bleeding husband in one of her pacifist videos.

    And everyone knows the cost of war, just as they know the cost of drunk driving. Does the AP splash pictures of a dead John Jr. (Kennedy) all over to show that pilots should not be flying in conditions they are not trained for?

    This is war porn.

  3. AFW I remember the O’Donnell incident and remember you commenting on it back then.

    I know this type of stuff must really hit the hardest with you.

    I feel bad for military wives because of how strong they are forced to become. It isn’t something that you relax into, it’s something that takes quite some time.

    These reporters and liberals blatherheads though should be sentenced to meeting a couple of military wives in a dark alley some night.

    We’ve missed you nonetheless. Best of luck to you and your husband.

  4. “Since when does the freedom of the press give you or anyone else the right to exploit these incidents for your own political purposes?”

    Mel,

    This is why they are liberals. They know not what they do.

    In my own mind, I’m as much a sissy as any liberal over at the Bluffington Post. I do not think I could ever point a gun at a man and shoot – honestly. Showing these pictures pointlessly gets us frustrated and upset.

    We know the AP and all other liberals’ goal here is to frustrate to the point we stop all war immediately. We know what kind of chaos that would cause and the number of deaths would triple within months if freedom had no protection of strength. The people who understand the purpose of war like us are the same people that value all life equally. Thus, whether is be an aborted child, a fallen soldier, or an innocent casualty in another country, we feel bad. The AP is simply trying to embark on that very decent intrinsic feeling inside all of us. Liberals truly make up the unrealistic portion of humanity who don’t realize that much worse pictures would appear if it weren’t for achieving peace through strength.

    AFW’s hubby and others who are gifted and blessed by God with the will to withstand these tragedies and images are placed there by our government because of their ability to be objective and to know at the end of the day, there is great purpose.

    When the soldier is no longer here to talk for himself, liberals will happily talk for them. This is their way of dealing a terribly unfair blow to the realistic.

  5. Steve, those are very sweet comments – thank you!

    But the one thing most military wives would cringe at hearing is that someone feels bad for us! This is a choice we make to live this way, and it does take practice. And we have a big sense of pride in the things we accomplish.We are also blessed with an incredible community in each other. Unfortunately, we’re way too insular – it happens when you feel like no one understands you on the “outside” and that no one is listening to you.

    I think that idea is easy to come by with the way most of the media rolls.

    A line was crossed when mainstream media used this photo – and lines can’t be uncrossed. Will anyone listen to us, or will they continue to say that the anger over this photo was “drummed up by Fox News” (a comment someone posted on the facebook page of one of my friends, btw, whose husband just returned from deployment less than a week ago).

    I think that if many people opened their ears, they might hear that anger and resentment at journalists has been pretty endemic in the military community for a long while, and not because we’re all right wing crazy gun nut kill bots. The media is hypocritical – one need look no further than the way they hushed up David Rhodes’ hostage taking for months in order to ensure his safety. Were there pictures of any journalist casualties? No.

    And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

    Double standard.

  6. "Since when does the freedom of the press give you or anyone else the right to exploit these incidents for your own political purposes?"

    Mel,

    This is why they are liberals. They know not what they do.

    In my own mind, I'm as much a sissy as any liberal over at the Bluffington Post. I do not think I could ever point a gun at a man and shoot – honestly. Showing these pictures pointlessly gets us frustrated and upset.

    We know the AP and all other liberals' goal here is to frustrate to the point we stop all war immediately. We know what kind of chaos that would cause and the number of deaths would triple within months if freedom had no protection of strength. The people who understand the purpose of war like us are the same people that value all life equally. Thus, whether is be an aborted child, a fallen soldier, or an innocent casualty in another country, we feel bad. The AP is simply trying to embark on that very decent intrinsic feeling inside all of us. Liberals truly make up the unrealistic portion of humanity who don't realize that much worse pictures would appear if it weren't for achieving peace through strength.

    AFW's hubby and others who are gifted and blessed by God with the will to withstand these tragedies and images are placed there by our government because of their ability to be objective and to know at the end of the day, there is great purpose.

    When the soldier is no longer here to talk for himself, liberals will happily talk for them. This is their way of dealing a terribly unfair blow to the realistic….

  7. “Since when does the freedom of the press give you or anyone else the right to exploit these incidents for your own political purposes?”

    How about making money? If it bleeds it leads? Sounds like a money move to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s