RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

DeGhett writes: "In the case of the charred Iraqi soldier, the hypnotizing and awful photograph ran against the popular myth of the Gulf War as a 'video-game war'-a conflict made humane through precision bombing and night-vision equipment."

 (photo: Kenneth Jarecke/Contact Press Images)
(photo: Kenneth Jarecke/Contact Press Images)


The War Photo No One Would Publish

By Torie Rose DeGhett, The Atlantic

11 August 14

 

The image that is the central subject of this article can be viewed in context below. Please note that all of the images are graphic and disturbing. Kudos to the article's author, Torie Rose DeGhett, and to photojournalist Kenneth Jarecke for the images he took significant risk to capture. - MA/RSN

 

When Kenneth Jarecke photographed an Iraqi man burned alive, he thought it would change the way Americans saw the Gulf War. But the media wouldn’t run the picture.

he Iraqi soldier died attempting to pull himself up over the dashboard of his truck. The flames engulfed his vehicle and incinerated his body, turning him to dusty ash and blackened bone. In a photograph taken soon afterward, the soldier’s hand reaches out of the shattered windshield, which frames his face and chest. The colors and textures of his hand and shoulders look like those of the scorched and rusted metal around him. Fire has destroyed most of his features, leaving behind a skeletal face, fixed in a final rictus. He stares without eyes.

On February 28, 1991, Kenneth Jarecke stood in front of the charred man, parked amid the carbonized bodies of his fellow soldiers, and photographed him. At one point, before he died this dramatic mid-retreat death, the soldier had had a name. He’d fought in Saddam Hussein’s army and had a rank and an assignment and a unit. He might have been devoted to the dictator who sent him to occupy Kuwait and fight the Americans. Or he might have been an unlucky young man with no prospects, recruited off the streets of Baghdad.

Jarecke took the picture just before a ceasefire officially ended Operation Desert Storm—the U.S.-led military action that drove Saddam Hussein and his troops out of Kuwait, which they had annexed and occupied the previous August. The image and its anonymous subject might have come to symbolize the Gulf War. Instead, it went unpublished in the United States, not because of military obstruction but because of editorial choices.

It’s hard to calculate the consequences of a photograph’s absence. But sanitized images of warfare, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf argues, make it “easier … to accept bloodless language” such as 1991 references to “surgical strikes” or modern-day terminology like “kinetic warfare.” The Vietnam War, in contrast, was notable for its catalog of chilling and iconic war photography. Some images, like Ron Haeberle’s pictures of the My Lai massacre, were initially kept from the public, but other violent images—Nick Ut’s scene of child napalm victims and Eddie Adams’s photo of a Vietcong man’s execution—won Pulitzer Prizes and had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the war.

Not every gruesome photo reveals an important truth about conflict and combat. Last month, The New York Times decided—for valid ethical reasons—to remove images of dead passengers from an online story about Flight MH-17 in Ukraine and replace them with photos of mechanical wreckage. Sometimes though, omitting an image means shielding the public from the messy, imprecise consequences of a war—making the coverage incomplete, and even deceptive.

In the case of the charred Iraqi soldier, the hypnotizing and awful photograph ran against the popular myth of the Gulf War as a “video-game war”—a conflict made humane through precision bombing and night-vision equipment. By deciding not to publish it, Time magazine and the Associated Press denied the public the opportunity to confront this unknown enemy and consider his excruciating final moments.

The image was not entirely lost. The Observer in the United Kingdom and Libération in France both published it after the American media refused. Many months later, the photo also appeared in American Photo, where it stoked some controversy, but came too late to have a significant impact. All of this surprised the photographer, who had assumed the media would be only too happy to challenge the popular narrative of a clean, uncomplicated war. “When you have an image that disproves that myth,” he says today, “then you think it’s going to be widely published.”

“Let me say up front that I don’t like the press,” one Air Force officer declared, starting a January 1991 press briefing on a blunt note. The military’s bitterness toward the media was in no small part a legacy of the Vietnam coverage decades before. By the time the Gulf War started, the Pentagon had developed access policies that drew on press restrictions used in the U.S. wars in Grenada and Panama in the 1980s. Under this so-called “pool” system, the military grouped print, TV, and radio reporters together with cameramen and photojournalists and sent these small teams on orchestrated press junkets, supervised by Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) who kept a close watch on their charges.

By the time Operation Desert Storm began in mid-January 1991, Kenneth Jarecke had decided he no longer wanted to be a combat photographer—a profession, he says, that “dominates your life.” But after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Jarecke developed a low opinion of the photojournalism coming out of Desert Shield, the pre-war operation to build up troops and equipment in the Gulf. “It was one picture after another of a sunset with camels and a tank,” he says. War was approaching and Jarecke says he saw a clear need for a different kind of coverage. He felt he could fill that void.

After the U.N.’s January 15, 1991 deadline for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait came and went, Jarecke, now certain he should go, convinced Time magazine to send him to Saudi Arabia. He packed up his cameras and shipped out from Andrews Air Force Base on January 17—the first day of the aerial bombing campaign against Iraq.

Out in the field with the troops, Jarecke recalls, “anybody could challenge you,” however absurdly and without reason. He remembers straying 30 feet away from his PAO and having a soldier bark at him, “What are you doing?” Jarecke retorted, “What do you mean what am I doing?”

Recounting the scene two decades later, Jarecke still sounds exasperated. “Some first lieutenant telling me, you know, where I’m gonna stand. In the middle of the desert.”

As the war picked up in early February, PAOs accompanied Jarecke and several other journalists as they attached to the Army XVIII Airborne Corps and spent two weeks at the Saudi-Iraqi border doing next to nothing. That didn’t mean nothing was happening—just that they lacked access to the action.

During the same period, military photojournalist Lee Corkran was embedding with the U.S. Air Force’s 614th Tactical Fighter Squadron in Doha, Qatar, and capturing their aerial bombing campaigns. He was there to take pictures for the Pentagon to use as it saw fit—not primarily for media use. In his images, pilots look over their shoulders to check on other planes. Bombs hang off the jets’ wings, their sharp-edged darkness contrasting with the soft colors of the clouds and desert below. In the distance, the curvature of the earth is visible. On missions, Corkran’s plane would often flip upside down at high speed as the pilots dodged missiles, leaving silvery streaks in the sky. Gravitational forces multiplied the weight of his cameras—so much so that if he had ever needed to eject from the plane, his equipment could have snapped his neck. This was the air war that comprised most of the combat mission in the Gulf that winter.

The scenes Corkran witnessed weren’t just off-limits to Jarecke; they were also invisible to viewers in the United States, despite the rise of 24-hour reporting during the conflict. Gulf War television coverage, as Ken Burns wrote at the time, felt cinematic and often sensational, with “distracting theatrics” and “pounding new theme music,” as if “the war itself might be a wholly owned subsidiary of television.”

Some of the most widely seen images of the air war were shot not by photographers, but rather by unmanned cameras attached to planes and laser-guided bombs. Grainy shots and video footage of the roofs of targeted buildings, moments before impact, became a visual signature of a war that was deeply associated with phrases like “smart bombs” and “surgical strike.” The images were taken at an altitude that erased the human presence on the ground. They were black-and-white shots, some with bluish or greenish casts. One from February 1991, published in the photo book In The Eye of Desert Storm by the now-defunct Sygma photo agency, showed a bridge that was being used as an Iraqi supply route. In another, black plumes of smoke from French bombs blanketed an Iraqi Republican Guard base like ink blots. None of them looked especially violent.

The hardware-focused coverage of the war removed the empathy that Jarecke says is crucial in photography, particularly photography that’s meant to document death and violence. “A photographer without empathy,” he remarks, “is just taking up space that could be better used.”

In late February, during the war’s final hours, Jarecke and the rest of his press pool drove across the desert, each of them taking turns behind the wheel. They had been awake for several days straight. “We had no idea where we were. We were in a convoy,” Jarecke recalls. He dozed off.

When he woke up, they had parked and the sun was about to rise. It was almost 6 o’clock in the morning. The group received word that a ceasefire was a few hours away, and Jarecke remembers another member of his pool cajoling the press officer into abandoning the convoy and heading toward Kuwait City.

The group figured they were in southern Iraq, somewhere in the desert about 70 miles away from Kuwait City. They began driving toward Kuwait, hitting Highway 8 and stopping to take pictures and record video footage. They came upon a jarring scene: burned-out Iraqi military convoys and incinerated corpses. Jarecke sat in the truck, alone with Patrick Hermanson, a public affairs officer. He moved to get out of the vehicle with his cameras.

Hermanson found the idea of photographing the scene distasteful. When I asked him about the conversation, he recalled asking Jarecke, “What do you need to take a picture of that for?” Implicit in his question was a judgment: There was something dishonorable about photographing the dead.

“I’m not interested in it either,” Jarecke recalls replying. He told the officer that he didn’t want his mother to see his name next to photographs of corpses. “But if I don’t take pictures like these, people like my mom will think war is what they see in movies.” As Hermanson remembers, Jarecke added, “It’s what I came here to do. It’s what I have to do.”

“He let me go,” Jarecke recounts. “He didn’t try to stop me. He could have stopped me because it was technically not allowed under the rules of the pool. But he didn’t stop me and I walked over there.”

More than two decades later, Hermanson notes that Jarecke’s resulting picture was “pretty special.” He doesn’t need to see the photograph to resurrect the scene in his mind. “It’s seared into my memory,” he says, “as if it happened yesterday.”

The incinerated man stared back at Jarecke through the camera’s viewfinder, his blackened arm reaching over the edge of the truck’s windshield. Jarecke recalls that he could “see clearly how precious life was to this guy, because he was fighting for it. He was fighting to save his life to the very end, till he was completely burned up. He was trying to get out of that truck.”

He wrote later that year in American Photo magazine that he “wasn’t thinking at all about what was there; if I had thought about how horrific the guy looked I wouldn’t have been able to make the picture.” Instead, he maintained his emotional remove by attending to the more prosaic and technical elements of photography. He kept himself steady; he concentrated on the focus. The sun shone in through the rear of the destroyed truck and backlit his subject. Another burned body lay directly in front of the vehicle, blocking a close-up shot, so Jarecke used the full 200mm zoom lens on his Canon EOS-1.

In his other shots of the same scene, it is apparent that the soldier could never have survived, even if he had pulled himself up out of the driver’s seat and through the window. The desert sand around the truck is scorched. Bodies are piled behind the vehicle, indistinguishable from one another. A lone, burned man lies face down in front of the truck, everything incinerated except the soles of his bare feet. In another photograph, a man lies spread-eagle on the sand, his body burned to the point of disintegration, but his face mostly intact and oddly serene. A dress shoe lies next to his body.

The group continued on across the desert, passing through more stretches of highway littered with the same fire-ravaged bodies and vehicles. Jarecke and his pool were possibly the first members of the Western media to come across these scenes, which appeared along what eventually became known as the Highway of Death, sometimes referred to as the Road to Hell.

The retreating Iraqi soldiers had been trapped. They were frozen in a traffic jam, blocked off by the Americans, by Mutla Ridge, by a minefield. Some fled on foot; the rest were strafed by American planes that swooped overhead, passing again and again to destroy all the vehicles. Milk vans, fire trucks, limousines, and one bulldozer appeared in the wreckage alongside armored cars and trucks, and T-55 and T-72 tanks. Most vehicles held fully loaded, but rusting, Kalashnikov variants. According to descriptions from reporters like The New York Times’ R.W. Apple and the Observer’s Colin Smith, amid the plastic mines, grenades, ammunition, and gas masks, a quadruple-barreled anti-aircraft gun stood crewless and still pointing skyward. Personal items, like a photograph of a child’s birthday party and broken crayons, littered the ground beside weapons and body parts. The body count never seems to have been determined, although the BBC puts it in the “thousands.”

“In one truck,” wrote Colin Smith in a March 3 dispatch for the Observer, “the radio had been knocked out of the dashboard but was still wired up and faintly picking up some plaintive Arabic air which sounded so utterly forlorn I thought at first it must be a cry for help.”

Following the February 28 ceasefire that ended Desert Storm, Jarecke’s film roll with the image of the incinerated soldier reached the Joint Information Bureau in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, where the military coordinated and corralled the press, and where pool editors received and filed stories and photographs. At that point, with the operation over, the photograph would not have needed to pass through a security screening, says Maryanne Golon, who was the on-site photo editor for Time in Saudi Arabia and is now director of photography for The Washington Post. Despite the obviously shocking content, she tells me she reacted like an editor in work mode. She selected it, without debate or controversy among the pool editors, to be scanned and transmitted. The image made its way back to the editors’ offices in New York City.

Jarecke also made his way from Saudi Arabia to New York. Passing through Heathrow Airport on a layover, he bought a copy of the March 3 edition of the Observer. He opened it to find his photograph on page 9, printed at the top across eight columns under the heading, “The real face of war.”

That weekend in March, when the Observer’s editors made the final decision to print the image, every magazine in North America made the opposite choice. Jarecke’s photograph did not even appear on the desks of most U.S. newspaper editors (the exception being The New York Times, which had a photo wire service subscription but nonetheless declined to publish the image). The photograph was entirely absent from American media until far past the time when it was relevant to ground reporting from Iraq and Kuwait. Golon says she wasn’t surprised by this, even though she’d chosen to transmit it to the American press. “I didn’t think there was any chance they’d publish it,” she says.

Apart from the Observer, the only major news outlet to run the Iraqi soldier’s photograph at the time was the Parisian news daily Libération, which ran it on March 4. Both newspapers refrained from putting the image on the front page, though they ran it prominently inside. But Aidan Sullivan, the pictures editor for the British Sunday Times, told the British Journal of Photography on March 14 that he had opted instead for a wide shot of the carnage: a desert highway littered with rubble. He challenged the Observer: “We would have thought our readers could work out that a lot of people had died in those vehicles. Do you have to show it to them?”

“There were 1,400 [Iraqi soldiers] in that convoy, and every picture transmitted until that one came, two days after the event, was of debris, bits of equipment,” Tony McGrath, the Observer’s pictures editor, was quoted as saying in the same article. “No human involvement in it at all; it could have been a scrapyard. That was some dreadful censorship.”

The media took it upon themselves to “do what the military censorship did not do,” says Robert Pledge, the head of the Contact Press Images photojournalism agency that has represented Jarecke since the 1980s. The night they received the image, Pledge tells me, editors at the Associated Press’ New York City offices pulled the photo entirely from the wire service, keeping it off the desks of virtually all of America’s newspaper editors. It is unknown precisely how, why, or by whom the AP’s decision was handed down.

Vincent Alabiso, who at the time was the executive photo editor for the AP, later distanced himself from the wire service’s decision. In 2003, he admitted to American Journalism Review that the photograph ought to have gone out on the wire and argued that such a photo would today.

Yet the AP’s reaction was repeated at Time and Life. Both magazines briefly considered the photo, unofficially referred to as “Crispy,” for publication. The photo departments even drew up layout plans. Time, which had sent Jarecke to the Gulf in the first place, planned for the image to accompany a story about the Highway of Death.

“We fought like crazy to get our editors to let us publish that picture,” former photo director Michele Stephenson tells me. As she recalls, Henry Muller, the managing editor, told her, “Time is a family magazine.” And the image was, when it came down to it, just too disturbing for the outlet to publish. It was, to her recollection, the only instance during the Gulf War where the photo department fought but failed to get an image into print.

James Gaines, the managing editor of Life, took responsibility for the ultimate decision not to run Jarecke’s image in his own magazine’s pages, despite photo director Peter Howe’s push to give it a double-page spread. “We thought that this was the stuff of nightmares,” Gaines told Ian Buchanan of the British Journal of Photography in March 1991. “We have a fairly substantial number of children who read Life magazine,” he added. Even so, the photograph was published later that month in one of Life’s special issues devoted to the Gulf War—not typical reading material for the elementary-school set.

Stella Kramer, who worked as a freelance photo editor for Life on four special-edition issues on the Gulf War, tells me that the decision to not publish Jarecke’s photo was less about protecting readers than preserving the dominant narrative of the good, clean war. Flipping through 23-year-old issues, Kramer expresses clear distaste at the editorial quality of what she helped to create. The magazines “were very sanitized,” she says. “So, that’s why these issues are all basically just propaganda.” She points out the picture on the cover of the February 25 issue: a young blond boy dwarfed by the American flag he’s holding. “As far as Americans were concerned,” she remarks, “nobody ever died.”

“If pictures tell stories,” Lee Corkran tells me, “the story should have a point. So if the point is the utter annihilation of people who were in retreat and all the charred bodies ... if that’s your point, then that’s true. And so be it. I mean, war is ugly. It’s hideous.” To Corkran, who was awarded the Bronze Star for his Gulf War combat photography, pictures like Jarecke’s tell important stories about the effects of American and allied airpower. Even Patrick Hermanson, the public affairs officer who originally protested the idea of taking pictures of the scene, now says the media should not have censored the photo.

The U.S. military has now abandoned the pool system it used in 1990 and 1991, and the Internet has changed the way photos reach the public. Even if the AP did refuse to send out a photo, online outlets would certainly run it, and no managing editor would be able to prevent it from being shared across various social platforms, or being the subject of extensive op-ed and blog commentary. If anything, today’s controversies often center on the vast abundance of disturbing photographs, and the difficulty of putting them in a meaningful context.

Some have argued that showing bloodshed and trauma repeatedly and sensationally can dull emotional understanding. But never showing these images in the first place guarantees that such an understanding will never develop. “Try to imagine, if only for a moment, what your intellectual, political, and ethical world would be like if you had never seen a photograph,” author Susie Linfield asks in The Cruel Radiance, her book on photography and political violence. Photos like Jarecke’s not only show that bombs drop on real people; they also make the public feel accountable. As David Carr wrote in The New York Times in 2003, war photography has “an ability not just to offend the viewer, but to implicate him or her as well.”

As an angry 28-year-old Jarecke wrote in American Photo in 1991: “If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+44 # tedrey 2014-08-11 19:45
There were pictures out of Vietnam of American soldiers relaxing amidst little collections of body parts, presumably those of enemies. These were circulated fairly widely in Europe. I never saw a single one in American media.
 
 
+27 # karenvista 2014-08-12 00:23
Quoting tedrey:
There were pictures out of Vietnam of American soldiers relaxing amidst little collections of body parts, presumably those of enemies. These were circulated fairly widely in Europe. I never saw a single one in American media.


Those are not the pictures I saw during the Vietnam War.

Buy the iconic book '"Requiem"' by the Photographers Who Died in Vietnam and Indochina", edited by Horst Faas and Tim Page with the introduction by David Halberstam. There were many incredibly brave and talented photographers from both sides whose final works were published in the U.S, and are memorialized in this book.

Their powerful work is why the nation rebelled. We saw this war, for the first and last time.

That's why journalists who refuse "embedding" are at such high risk now. No one has officially charged us with targeting them but they know they are targets.

How else could you account for the fact that we are notified of the coordinates of all media offices, including Al Jazeera, yet we have bombed their offices in Afghanistan and Iraq and even blew up one of their reporters and camera crew while they were broadcasting on-air. I saw that disgusting crime.

It is not that journalists have been cowardly, it's that the media is either censored or self-censored and don't want us to worry our little heads about all the trillions of dollars that are being made by our bestial acts. It might upset us if we saw the truth.

Like here!
 
 
+7 # Capn Canard 2014-08-12 10:29
When you put young, naive and many time ignorant, soldiers in war they will do regrettably reprehensible things. We can all read "The Good War" or "All Quiet of the Western Front" amongst too many to list. It is very natural and very, very ugly. It is almost as if sadism is a natural human trait.
 
 
+48 # LizR 2014-08-11 21:41
This is what war is about. Give psychopaths a free hand and what do you expect? It's all ghastly.
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2014-08-12 10:20
LizR, agreed. It looks like the corporate inmates have taken complete control of the asylum.
 
 
+11 # medusa 2014-08-11 23:33
Susan Sontag has excellent commentary on photographs of war and atrocity in the opening pages of her 1977 book, On Photography.
 
 
+41 # handskhan 2014-08-12 00:17
I wish some one has the guts to show the pictures of the atrocities done to the population of Ghaza.
 
 
+7 # Capn Canard 2014-08-12 10:22
handskhan, yes, and this is the ugly realities that war always brings. And now Israel-America can do while sitting in front of a computer! This is what the chickenshit War Hawks call progress.
 
 
+10 # Glen 2014-08-12 06:10
The promotion of war, as has been stated in many of these threads, is an industry that cannot be stopped. The lies told to excuse the death and destruction are breathtaking and so inexcusable it could be referred to as worse than the proverbial sin. There will be no forgiving those who pull it off and then hide it all.

There have been many photos in the public domain, but offered much as the ole stolen goods hidden in the long coat of the street black marketer

Right now folks care far more about the death of Robin Williams than the deaths of many thousands somewhere "out there".
 
 
+19 # RMDC 2014-08-12 06:44
The photo of the burned Iraqi soldier was published in 1992 on the cover of a book called "War Crimes: A Report on US War Crimes Against Iraq." The book was collected by Ramsey Clark and the newly formed International Action Center in New York. It was published by Maisonneuve Press in Washington DC.

There are definitely copies still around.

The cover was changed on a subsequent printing because some book stores refused to carry the original cover on their shelves.

The fact remains that Americans really don't want to see what their government and military actually do all over the world. In my view, I think Americans should be forced to see what is done in their names. These photos should be everywhere. This is how 90% of the world's people see the US.
 
 
+4 # karenvista 2014-08-13 00:27
Quoting RMDC:

The fact remains that Americans really don't want to see what their government and military actually do all over the world. In my view, I think Americans should be forced to see what is done in their names. These photos should be everywhere. This is how 90% of the world's people see the US.


We marched the German civilians through the Concentration Camps but we can't stand to see any photos of our inhumanity.
 
 
+2 # Pickwicky 2014-08-13 16:43
RMDC--small correction--som e Americans "really don't want to see," but many of us do. How else can we judge the matter?
 
 
+9 # Kootenay Coyote 2014-08-12 07:42
I recall the appalling images of WW II in Life magazine I saw as a very young child. They gave me a standard by which to evaluate organized action & ground my pacifist views. US (& Canadian) war image censorship policy is a response to the powerful effect of images of the Viet nam war: they generated public disapproval of the political goals of those in power. Can’t have that, you know. But truth, like murder, will out eventually.

And by the way, do spare us that illiterate stupidity, '...the images are graphic...'. It's an image, it can't help but be graphic, that's what the word mean: drawn or written. Be mature & say 'the image is appalling.'
 
 
+5 # Jim Young 2014-08-12 07:46
Dickey Chapelle's (who accidentally was allowed to go ashore at Iwo Jima)story in the Nov, 1962 National Geographic led me to later volunteer for Vietnam, to see for myself, what was going on. Henri Huet's picture of her receiving last rites led me to examine how she died. Eddie Adams picture, a few blocks from where half our non-combatant weather techs pick our guys living in town, gave me a few more clues on how pictures really don't tell the whole story, but raise questions that deserve a lot more questioning and a broader look at what both sides do. The Vietnamese I asked (and think more people should ask) thought the North Vietnamese did worse. For what it's worth, I told a CID troop what a very troubled trooper (who I later found was describing My Lai, "Pinkville" to him) told me two days later(apparentl y not enough). You'd have to watch http://video.mpbn.net/program/matter-duty/ for an idea of how to help the guys who had to see such stuff, sometimes going along with it due to peer pressure. I hope such people can help bring us back from the "counter-produc tive" descent into darkside, converting "peer pressure" away from the dark side (like we did at the end of WWII with Germany and Japan).
 
 
+13 # wrknight 2014-08-12 07:54
Why is it that we promote war and killing and yet shy away from the scenes of death? (Witness the sterile killing scenes in video games, movies, TV dramas and "news".)

Why is it that the two greatest expenditures in our society are for 1) destroying property and killing humans and 2) curing disease and saving human lives? (Witness the respective costs of "national defense" and health care.)

What other life form spends so much energy destroying itself while at the same time trying to extend its existence?

Are we not a strange species?
 
 
+3 # wildcard 2014-08-13 03:39
Quoting wrknight:
Why is it that we promote war and killing and yet shy away from the scenes of death? (Witness the sterile killing scenes in video games, movies, TV dramas and "news".)

Why is it that the two greatest expenditures in our society are for 1) destroying property and killing humans and 2) curing disease and saving human lives? (Witness the respective costs of "national defense" and health care.)

What other life form spends so much energy destroying itself while at the same time trying to extend its existence?

Are we not a strange species?


Yes the biggest US expenditure is on war and weapons of war, but the 2nd biggest is not for "saving lives", but for enriching Big Pharma and other corporate Greedheads in the guise of "Healthcare" and Social Services for the general citizenry.
 
 
+11 # Concerned Citizen 2014-08-12 07:58
Watch your tax dollars go to war,
then close your eyes and see no more!
 
 
+4 # Pickwicky 2014-08-13 16:52
Watch your tax dollars go to war,
don't close your eyes, watch some more;
See those weapons they now hurl;
They're the ones we sold the world.
 
 
+11 # walt 2014-08-12 08:10
I personally saw a stack of similar photos taken in Kuwait in the Gulf War and was shocked. What appeared to me was that we took great delight in obliterating retreating Iraqi troops with our superior weaponry when, in reality, they were a poor bunch of victims of their own leader and a part of a poorly equipped force. They might have been taken prisoners and perhaps would have told us much more and even supported the USA in the process.

Sadly the USA likes to be seen riding a white horse and defending the world from the bad guys. The reality is quite different, especially when we are seen as those bad guys. That's becoming more the case.
 
 
0 # Jim Young 2014-08-28 11:51
Quoting walt:
I personally saw a stack of similar photos taken in Kuwait in the Gulf War and was shocked. What appeared to me was that we took great delight in obliterating retreating Iraqi troops with our superior weaponry when, in reality, they were a poor bunch of victims of their own leader and a part of a poorly equipped force. They might have been taken prisoners and perhaps would have told us much more and even supported the USA in the process.

Sadly the USA likes to be seen riding a white horse and defending the world from the bad guys. The reality is quite different, especially when we are seen as those bad guys. That's becoming more the case.


Actually, the guys involved have been troubled by it. It seems at least some of them didn't know what else to do, and the leaders that could have let up on them, were slow to do so. Those retreating were not Saddam's best by any means, but it would have been better (in my mind) to have simply stopped them from escaping and persuading them that we would rather let them switch sides. Piling on may have felt "good" to some, but it also created more resentment and more determined enemies more likely to do the same to us, if they got the chance. The saddest losses of our guys (to me) were the ones who had no idea of how much needless hatred those before them had stirred up.

Some of our guys that I talked to sensed that as it was happening.
 
 
0 # Jim Young 2014-08-31 11:54
Quoting walt:
I personally saw a stack of similar photos taken in Kuwait in the Gulf War and was shocked. What appeared to me was that we took great delight in obliterating retreating Iraqi troops with our superior weaponry when, in reality, they were a poor bunch of victims of their own leader and a part of a poorly equipped force. They might have been taken prisoners and perhaps would have told us much more and even supported the USA in the process...



Perhaps Putin learned something from that. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/29/ukraine-russia-friday/14785073/

...Earlier, in Moscow, Putin issued a rare, direct address to the separatists, lauding their latest offensive and calling on rebels to open a humanitarian corridor to allow encircled Ukrainian army units to withdraw and return to their families.

Putin said the Ukrainian soldiers "did not participate in the military operation of their own volition" and were only following orders. He asked for their release, "so as to avoid any needless loss of life."...
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2014-08-12 08:25
It's time to reinstate the draft and force everyone to experience the realities of war. (And no exemptions for those who have "higher priorities".)

We made a serious mistake when we allowed those who can start wars pass the costs onto others and avoid all personal risk to themselves.
 
 
+1 # Glen 2014-08-12 12:02
No no no, wrknight. The draft would simply ensure further fodder/victims the U.S. government could choose from, and create additional chaos, protests, defections. The draft would then never be rescinded. The world war the U.S. is setting up would then have involuntary fighters to do their work, even in country.

If you lived through the era of the '60's draft, you will remember the heartache, tension, melancholia, and desperation to escape, either through impromptu marriage, or fleeing the country. Today, it would be much worse.
 
 
+3 # wrknight 2014-08-12 16:33
I did live through the 60's. And the 50's, and the 40's; and I've seen the heartache of all the wars since WWII. During the Vietnam War the heartache and tension you refer to was due to the justifiable opposition to an unjust war. The opposition to the draft was a reaction to the opposition to the war; and while I was a veteran of the Korean War, I fully sympathized with the opposition to the war. But at the same time, I fully supported and continue to support the draft.

I support the draft because it brings home to all Americans the true cost of war. When the true cost of war is born by only a small percentage of Americans, as it is today, the concept of war for the rest of us is simply an abstraction, something to watch on TV or discuss around the coffee pot. But there is no fear, no dread, no risk to us personally so we don't get worked up about it. We cannot prevent a war if we remain complacent.

We need to get worked up about it. We need to be aware of the true costs of war. If we, as a nation, decide to go to war, then we, as a nation, need to have a personal stake in it. All of us.
 
 
+4 # Glen 2014-08-12 16:57
You cannot force people to be "aware". Reinstating the draft is the same as supporting war.

There is no reason to insist anybody have a stake in it.
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2014-08-13 17:02
Glen--We must have a standing Army, otherwise we are at risk;. a nation's strong military may deter invasion; Therefore, your claim of equivalence is wrong: "reinstating the draft is the same as supporting war."
 
 
+1 # Glen 2014-08-14 17:11
We do have a standing army. And we do now have an in country standing army. What more do you want?

It would seem now that an outside invasion is the least of our worries. The militaristic police have become our in country standing army.

But yeah. Reinstating the draft would be a huge mistake for many many reasons.
 
 
+4 # Capn Canard 2014-08-12 10:16
Showing the gruesomeness of war does not promote a war for the control and access to remaining oil supplies. It's just not good for business. Anyone who majored in Public Relations completely understand that.
 
 
+1 # arquebus 2014-08-12 11:13
General Sherman said it best: "War is hell".
 
 
+8 # Buddha 2014-08-12 14:26
Most of our Right couldn't care, because they see anybody who is a geo-political enemy, particularly if they are not white Christians, as subhuman and deserving of this fate.
 
 
+2 # Pickwicky 2014-08-13 17:04
Buddha--I'm afraid you're right.
 
 
+3 # wrknight 2014-08-12 16:42
They also don't care because they have no personal stake in it. They won't get killed or wounded. They won't lose a loved one. No one in their circle of family or friends will be hurt by it. And many of them will profit from it. They win when we win and they win when we lose.
 
 
+6 # karenvista 2014-08-13 00:37
Quoting wrknight:
They also don't care because they have no personal stake in it. They won't get killed or wounded. They won't lose a loved one. No one in their circle of family or friends will be hurt by it. And many of them will profit from it. They win when we win and they win when we lose.



Sorry, but there is no way that children of the elite would ever be drafted.

At best they would jump ahead of a thousand more qualified candidates and defend the Texas coast from the North Vietnamese air force as a pilot of an outdated old fighter plane (until they went AWOL, like someone we elected president.)
 
 
+3 # Gibbous 2014-08-14 22:23
Dear RSN,
Thank you for this article. We all knew we weren't getting anything other than our government's sanitized version of events and that the media was so cowed they couldn't fill the gap. Some times it takes years to find out the truth: we are still finding out about WWI and WWII.

The Gulf "War" II was being reported like some sporting event, carnival, and fireworks show, all rolled into one - the most costly one we had ever "witnessed." This photo ranks up there with all the other pictures of the obscenities of war we have seen and must continue to see until we stop. The answers to that are blowin' in the wind.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN