Flag-Draped Coffins from Iraq - Assignment Example

1 Flag-Draped Coffins from Iraq (Controversial Photograph) Introduction There is one lesson of history that we vehemently refuse to learn: Wars are devastating for both the victor and the vanquished. Recorded history has all the proof. The very first wars that were waged over hunting and gathering rights, the global conflagrations, and all the later conflicts have without exception shown that the cost of war is not in mere dollar terms. The higher cost is in terms of human lives. This is common knowledge. However the Bush administration is of the opinion that the American people need not know all the gory details of our current engagement in Iraq. On the other hand the media is convinced that the people must be reminded of the lasting costs of this war and the tragic direction it has taken. Whatever the costs of this war, however gruesome its details; the American people should know the real cost of this war. The Administration's Point of View The Bush administration claims that its decision to forbid news organization from publishing pictures of war dead at military bases is not new. It argues that this has been the policy of administrations since the first Gulf War in 1991. The purpose of this decision it claims is to protect the feelings of the families of the victims. Scott McClellan the White House press secretary had stated that those who had made the greatest sacrifice in the service of the country should be honored and shown the greatest respect. And this she said is the president's primary concern. The administration 2 felt that the only way to honor the war-dead was by way of a private service in a cemetery. (Carter) Kathy Moakler, deputy director of government relations at the National Military Family Association, emphasized that the only purpose in banning publication of pictures of military dead being brought back to the country was to protect the privacy of the families who had lost a loved one. "At the devastating time [of loss], being sensitive to the families is what needs to be done," she said. (Madore) Another reason the administration cited for its objection to the publication of pictures of war-dead, was that this would be depressing to the families involved and attenuate the sacrifice our troops are making in the service of the country. The administration also stated that its objection to the publication by news agencies of photographs of flag-draped coffins was in keeping with the sentiments of the mourning families. It claimed that such publication invariably led to the invasion of the privacy of these families. The News Media Has its Own Conviction The news media has its own conviction. It is of the view that the American public has the prerogative to also know the cost of this war in terms of American lives. Besides the Freedom of Information Act of 1966, gives the American public the right to information relating to the operations of federal agencies. 3 It reasons that reporters in the actual field of battle are given unbridled access to the war. This being the case, it claims that the administration's ban on the publication of photographs of war-dead is its attempt to censor crucial war images. The news media claims that the policy of administrations on such matters has not been consistent. And in support of this it cites the instance of President H. W. Bush allowing media coverage of war-dead being brought back home from Panama and other wars in which the US was involved, but banned it during the first Gulf war. It also states that in 2000 the Clinton administration allowed publication of photographs of the victims of the terrorist attack on the warship USS Cole. It contends that the ban of 1991 was the consequence of some TV networks simultaneously airing split screen images of the then-president laughing in one portion, and coffin ceremonies of Gulf war I, in another. This time around the imposition of the ban on photograph publication was the Government's desire for secrecy. The news media contends that pictures of dead servicemen were being published as "a proper part of the national dialogue" and that the administration was actually worried about the fallout that this reality of war could cause. It accuses the military of trying to manage information. Tom Jariel a former ABC News correspondent claimed that the only reason for the administration's ban to the publication of photographs was to try and control the media and stage manage it for its benefit. . He also said that he was convinced that the ban was not out of consideration for the dead soldiers or their families. He claimed that the administration did not want the American public to see pictures of war-dead because 4 it did not want public opinion to change from one of support for the war, to vehement opposition to it. ("Worth a thousand words) This was a likely eventuality considering the fact that a Gallup survey found people who believed that the war had gone awry, increased by more than 20 percentage points after the publication of pictures of the bodies of American contractors after an attack in Fallujah. In any case the military itself takes pictures of returning war-dead. The media wants to know what the purpose of these pictures is, if they do not serve any public purpose. Pictures such as these must be shown to the public. Only then will the full impact of the war be felt. How many Americans realize that the majority of casualties in Iraq happened after the President stated in May 2003 that "major combat operations" were over Matthew T. Felling, media director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington is of the opinion that the decision to publish or not publish pictures of military coffins was that of the families of the victims and that the administration should not be taking these decisions on their behalf. (Madore) Some critics say that the ban on the publication of photographs was an attempt by the administration to hide the real cost of the war from the public. Jon Banner, executive producer of ABC News said that pictures such as these alone can bring out the true feelings and emotions that the public feels for its war dead. 5 Ralph Graves then managing editor of "Life Magazine" seems to say that there is a parallel between the current war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. His contention is that Life's decision to publish a week of photographs of war dead during that war was partly responsible for turning the tide of public opinion against the war. And this is what the current administration is afraid of. ("Worth a thousand words) Conclusion Apart from the constitutional right, people have a moral right to know the cost of war in terms of what matters most: the cost in American lives. And nothing tells this story better than the flag-draped coffins. If these pictures are not shown to the public those heroes who laid down their lives in the service of the country will be unsung and soon forgotten. The administrations of the 70s and 80s had nothing to hide. They in fact encouraged extensive coverage of war-dead during the Egypt, Lebanon and Grenada episodes. Presidents Carter and Reagan had nothing against it. Why then should this administration object Flag draped coffins is not something new to the American public. The cost in terms of American lives during this war is nothing compared to the cost during World War II. And yet the American people were more determined than ever to win that war at all costs. The reason: the cause justified the means. 6 But in this instance it is different. There were no WMD, no evidence of Iraq's complicity with Al-Qaeda and no imminent threat to America from that country. And yet the administration tries to justify our presence there. Should not the American people know the real cost of a war that should have been avoided In December 2003 a New York Times/CBS News poll revealed that 62 percent of Americans said the public should be allowed to see pictures of the military honor guard receiving the coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq. (What Others are Saying ) In dollar terms this war has already cost us more than $250 billion and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that in the next decade this war will cost us another $250 billion. However this is the lesser tragedy. The bigger tragedy is that this war has already cost us more than 2000 lives. Pictures of flag-draped coffins are our only reminder of the real cost of this war. (Blimes and Stiglitz) Works Cited Blimes, Linda and Stiglitz, Joseph E. "THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR". January 2006. 19 May 2006. . Carter, Bill. "Pentagon Ban on Pictures of Dead Troops Is Broken". April 23, 2004. 19 May, 2006. . Madore, James T. "Fallen GIs return unseen". April 19, 2004. 19, May 2006. < http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/1749.html>. "What Others are Saying About the Policy:", 2002/04/29. 19 May, 2006. . "Worth a thousand words". May 13, 2004. 19 May, 2006. . (ALL SOURCES ARE FROM GOOGLE) Read More