WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to lift the ban on news organizations photographing the flag-draped caskets of U.S. war dead returning home, and will instead leave the decision entirely up to the families, Pentagon sources said Thursday.
I think this is the right thing to do. What surprises me is that the ban goes back to 1991, except for special circumstances. I knew Bush put in a complete ban but didn’t know it had existed to some extent prior.
For those touched by this, what would be the privacy concerns if the coffins aren’t identified, as in the picture in the article? I would certainly want to respect the privacy of the families but I also think it is important for the country to get a complete picture of the war, not just what the publicity machine from the Pentagon wants us to hear.
Does anyone else think we are getting a sanitized version of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems we are just starting to get an idea of the number of disabled soldier coming back and the number of deaths we hear aren’t an accurate reflection of the true human cost of the war.
DISCLAIMER: I have no connection to anyone in or affected by the war in Iraq other than living close to a military base and hearing about who from that base has been killed.
Pictures of coffins have absolutely no impact on how I would view the war. One would have to be pretty simplistic mentally for that to make a difference IMHO.
Is there any sanctity left anymore?The way I see it is maybe some families are o.k. with it but if some are not then no cameras. The camera’s (Press ,oh and yes they always do the right thing) can film/pictures at the families request after Dover.
If you want to know whats going ,go talk to some soilders visit a V.A. hospital if you are looking for the unsanitized story.
The article is arguing that it had an impact on how American viewed the Vietnam war and caused people to no longer support it.
Vietnam was a war started on a false premise, backing up a corrupt “democratic” government which had little to no popular support in the occupied country.
How could we possibly draw a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam?
I think information is much more robust today. Flag draped coffins just don’t have the same oomph they did in the idealistic 60’s.
Those are my thoughts as well. You need to respect the privacy of the families and the policy change acknowledges that.
My point on the unsanitized version is that we aren’t hearing it, are we? The Vietnam war showed the messiness. At what point did “we” decide this wasn’t OK?
I really started this thread to hear from those in the military, in the war, veterans and families. I’m interested in their perspective on the policy change as it isn’t something I have direct experience with.
I think I have a fairly unique perspective to offer - I am a 14-year Army officer and my parents’ neighbor is the University of Delaware professor who initiated the lawsuit requiring the Pentagon to release the photos.
I really see this more as the Pentagon trying to respect privacy than trying to present a sanitized version of the war by covering up potentially stirring images. For one, the ban has been in place, like you say, since 1991. Second, the Army Times, a quasi-military publication (it is published by Gannett but DoD and DA provide a lot of info to the paper), publishes photos of the casualties from the previous week. These photos are all official photos (much like yearbook photos) that almost certainly have to come from the Department of the Army. These photos are far more stirring (to me at least) than seeing a photo of a flag-draped coffin.
That these photos are released but not others tends to make me trust the Pentagon’s motivations. I suspect the Pentagon arrived at this ban after consulting families of the bereaved and complying with their wishes/recommendations.
War is hell. People die, get injured, all kinds of horrible things happen. If by sanitized you mean we don’t see the suffering that goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan nightly on TV I agree.
**Does anyone else think we are getting a sanitized version of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems we are just starting to get an idea of the number of disabled soldier coming back and the number of deaths we hear aren’t an accurate reflection of the true human cost of the war. **
Hmmm…no, not at all. I generally listen to NPR and they have been doing stories on the human cost of the war all along, in fact so much so that I think they had a political agenda behind at least some of it. All of the military websites I frequent, including official websites, always post articles about the fallen, and give their names and a brief bio as soon as the next of kin have been notified, putting a face and a story behind those who have “given the last full measure of devotion.” News magazines such as Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report have done all sorts of stories on casualties and the fighting. There are also a lot of books available from journalists who were officially embedded with units that describe the true horror of some of the fighting, such as “Not a Good Day to Die” about Operation ANACONDA or “No True Glory” about the fight for Fallujah. Its out there, you don’t have to look very hard for it, and there is no one trying to sugar coat it.
As others have said, there’s a lot more info from a lot of different perspectives. I believe the real intent behind the ban was to respect the families of the fallen and the fallen themselves. It’s very trying to the family, and having a cohort of photographers in the area would simply add to their stress, IMO. Personally, I would want my wife and children left in peace.
24 year (retired) U.S Army infantry veteran. Direct fire ground combat experience from Iraq. Proud father of Son currently serving with distinction on U.S. Navy surface combatant vessel. 18 year triathlon veteran. Here is my take on why the reluctance.
Just within our little e-community here hosted by Dan–I am reminded instantly of a ST post by a noted left-leaning denizen of the lavender room from about 3 years ago. In that post the OP sought to juxtapose his displeasure with our (at that time) leadership with the “cost of the war in Iraq.” At that time he had ready access to innumerable pictures of our then commander-in-chief to use to cast him in an unflattering light. At that time the only pictures he had access to convey the “cost” of the war in Iraq was a symbolic protester graveyard. There was a big hullabaloo and ultimately I believe he retracted his original post/pic combo. Can there be any doubt that our intrepid OP would have used pictures of our actual war dead coming home in their transfer cases at Dover had it been within his ability to do so? Now the OP can rise up in righteous indignation and claim my argument is completely a-historical and he would never have done so. He’d be right—I could never prove he would have. However, I think we all know what he would have done had he had access to pictures of returning war dead from our current war in Iraq—because that was his exact point and the only thing stopping him was our (then) policy of denying publication of flag draped transfer cases at Dover. So there is the fear of the DoD, service members and their families-that pictures of our war dead will be used for cheap tawdry political points.
As Spot has rightly pointed out, many many official and semi-official sources honor the dead with appropriate pictures and bios; in near real time.
So this is just my opinion. U asked and there it is.
" So there is the fear of the DoD, service members and their families-that pictures of our war dead will be used for cheap tawdry political points. "
I don’t think there can be any reasonable doubt that this would and will happen. One only has to look at the cheap and tawdry protests that were taking place at military funerals to see how low people will go to score political points or to make their opinion known to anyone who will listen. Those people are generally so worried about focussing attention on themselves that they rarely concern themselves with the impact to others.
I absolutely asked for opinions and I realize my post shows my lack of support for the war but I hope I’ve shown I’m open to both sides of the story.
Losing someone you love is private. I guess I don’t understand why showing coffins without identifying who they are would be a violation of privacy.
Some of the most stirring images from war are of those who come home in a coffin and I wonder what really prompted the original ban. Was it to respect the families or prevent people from seeing the true consequences of war? Intellectually people know solidiers die but until you see how a family has suffered or are confronted by images of what is really happening it is easy to pretend nothing bad is happening.
Honestly, I’m not trying to start an argument about the war, just trying to understand where the line is, or if there is a line, between privacy and the public’s right to know.
"Honestly, I’m not trying to start an argument about the war, just trying to understand where the line is, or if there is a line, between privacy and the public’s right to know. "
I guess I’m not sure why the public has a “right” to see pictures of anyone’s coffin. I’m not sure where we get the idea of a “right to know,” but even if we accept that concept, I don’t know that it would be served by seeing pictures of coffins. As others have noted, there are more than plenty sources of information on casualties. The numbers were tossed around a lot during the election, and they are available on any number of websites and other news sources. I don’t think restricting or allowing pictures of coffins affects anyone’s ability or “right” to know anything.
I don’t know where you fall in the spectrum of your opposition to this war—and it really isn’t relevant to this discussion. The return of a Nation’s war dead is so evocative you can go back deep into ancient history (Thucydides, Homer) to gauge the importance.
After a contact in which a good friend of mine was seriously wounded I personally took a 5-gallon can of water, as one of my last acts before we all departed the scene, and washed the highway free of his bright red blood. I did not want our opponents’ to have access to even this image.
The simple fact that we, a democracy with protected rights, can debate the conduct of a war amidst one is symbolic of great success on all our part—yours and mine.
We can debate the merits of this war in great vigor—without your access to pictures of my Son’s body coming home in honor, or one of his peers. It’s the principle of the matter that matters to me—not whether or not my Son is in that transfer case. The fact is that it’s someone’s Son or Daughter and neither you nor I need intrude on the collapse of their personal world.
Meanwhile, via many many official and semi-official means there is unprecedented near-realtime access to pictures and stories of our war dead. What more do you wish? Is not the unprecedented access to the horror of war enough for you?
Here is John McCain’s response to the the Sinclair Broadcasting Group for not carrying Nightline’s show (in 04) where they gave the names and showed pictures of fallen soldiers.
Senator John McCain, a former POW in North Vietnam, then weighed in with a letter to Smith: “Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war’s terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.”
His sentiment is what I am thinking of when showing the picture of the coffins. It feels like they are being snuck in the back door and it is disrespectful, as if we are ashamed of them.