Killing America’s Kids

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Posted By Fred Reed On September 7, 2009

The Web is covered in stink today because of a reporter for the Associated Press, Julie Jacobson, who photographed the death of a Marine whose legs had just been blown off. The kid was Joshua Bernard, a lance corporal of 21 years. When the photo appeared, Robert Gates, the secretary of defense [sic] furiously tried to get the AP to quash the photo. It didn’t, to its everlasting credit. To quote one of many accounts on the Web:
"Gates followed up with a scathing letter to Curley [of AP] yesterday afternoon. The letter says Gates cannot imagine the pain Bernard’s family is feeling right now, and that Curley’s ‘lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put out this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy, or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.’"

I thought a long time before writing about this matter and was not pleasant to be around. The photo resonated with me, as we say. You see, long ago, in another pointless war, promoted by another conscienceless secretary, I too was a Marine lance corporal of 21 years. I too got shot, though not nearly as badly as this kid, and spent a year at Bethesda Naval Hospital. At this point I am legally blind following my (I think) 13th trip to eye surgery as a result of an identical foreign policy.

Big f*cking deal. Sh*t happens. At this point I’m comfortable and doing fine. Don’t cry for me, Argentina. The other kid is dead.

But that bothers me. And all of this perhaps gives me a certain insight into the matter that not all reporters have, nor all editors. It also makes me poisonously, bottle-throwing angry to think about another chilly professional bureaucrat, the Second Coming of McNamara, with less combat experience than Tinkerbell, sending kids to croak in weird places having nothing to do with the U.S.

But Gates. The words "decency" and "unconscionable" coming from him are fetid with hypocrisy. Gates was director of the CIA. "Intelligence" agencies are moral dirt, hated the world over for torture, murder, and destabilization of countries leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. The KGB, Mossad, CIA, Stasi, SAVAK – they’re all the same. A man who presides over torture and murder should not speak of decency. He has none.

Nor is it easy to believe that Gates feels the slightest sympathy for the dead kid or for his family. If you don’t want kids to die in Afghanistan, don’t send them there.

He does. How sorry can he be?

It could almost make you turn against the war. Some 6,000 American kids have died like this, the photographs carefully hidden by the press. The Pentagon has killed many, many more Afghan and Iraqi civilians, and the number of permanently disabled Americans is far higher. Today I find a column on Antiwar.com by Joe Galloway, whom I remember from UPI Saigon, entitled "Afghanistan Isn’t Worth One More American Life." I agree. Nor another Afghan life. They did nothing. Another headline notes that the Kondor Legion, the USAF, killed 95 Afghans in another witless air strike. These days, we are the Nazis.

Why then is he so angry at having the war photographed? Easy: Spin control. Spin is so very important in war these days. While America is only barely a democracy, still, if the public, the great sleeping, acquiescent, ignorant beast, ever gets really upset, the war ends. The Pentagon is acutely aware of this. It remembers its disaster in Asia. The generals of today learned nothing military from Vietnam – they are fighting the same kind of war as stupidly as before – but they learned something more important: their most dangerous enemy is the America public.

You. Me. Defeating the Taliban isn’t particularly important, or even desirable. (No war means fewer promotions and fewer contracts). But while the Taliban cannot possibly defeat the Pentagon, the American public can.

Photographs are death to a war, boys and girls. They can asphyxiate a war faster than roadside bombs can even dream. Gates does not want the sprawling, somnolent, inattentive beast, the public, to see what his wars really are.

In wars, there are many enlightening things to see. For example, the Marine with a third of his face and half a lung, going ku-kuk-kuk as red gunk rolls out of his mouth and he drowns in his blood. Ruined or dying teenagers whimpering the trinity of the badly wounded: mother, wife, and water. The brain-shot guy jerking like an epileptic as he tries not to die. Ever see brain tissue from gunshot? I have. It makes a pink spew across the ground. Like strawberry chiffon.

Gates does not want you to see this. You would puke, buy a bottle of bourbon, and take to the streets. He knows it. CBS could end these wars in a week if it aired what really happens. Gates cannot afford to let the dam break. PR is all. Thus Bush forbade the photographing of coffins coming home, and the CIA ferociously resists the publication of photographs of torture. Professional sadists do things to people that would make you gag.

Then there are the enlisted men. In these hobbyist wars, and to an extent even in peacetime, it is crucial to keep the enlisteds from thinking. In some three decades of covering the military, I saw this constantly. If I went to Afghanistan today as a correspondent, I could argue in private about the war with the colonel. If I suggested to the troops that they were being suckered, the colonel would go crazy.

Next to keeping the public quiescent, keeping the troops (and potential recruits) bamboozled is vital. If a high-school kid saw what awaited, if he saw the cartilage glistening in wrecked joints, he wouldn’t sign.

Do I think that the press should publish such photos? Not yes but hell yes on afterburner. Every time an editor covers for the Pentagon, every time papers refuse to show the charred bodies still… slowly… moving, the dead children, the… never mind. The effect is to ensure that more kids will die the same way. And the press almost always does exactly this. We are a trade of *****s and shills. Except that *****s give value for money. The press kills our children.

Julie Jacobson sounds like that modern-day rarity, a reporter, as distinguished from a volunteer flack. Bless her. I used to wonder whether women could hack it as combat correspondents. I no longer do. (There are lots of them.) I used to refer to smarmy, over-groomed, bloodthirsty office warts as p*ssies, saying that they lacked balls. The anatomical reference no longer works. I note that Jacobson has more combat time than the aggregate for Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Obama, Biden, Gonzales, Clinton, Perle, Abrams, Kristol, Feith, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, George Will, Dershowitz, and Gates. These men, if the word is appropriate, killed that kid. Jacobson just caught them in the act.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
What is interesting about this controversy is that every newscast shows the goriest pictures of the domestic 'violence of the day', yet a picture of a soldier killed at war is somehow too disturbing to show?

Strange priorities.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I'm not comfortable with any publication or news program showing anyone, regardless of the situation, during or immediately after a violent death. No individual wants to be remembered that way.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I'm not comfortable with any publication or news program showing anyone, regardless of the situation, during or immediately after a violent death. No individual wants to be remembered that way.

One could always omit the name. I am for omitting names in general, in any case.

The problem of course is that in order to confront people with the realities of war, one must confront them with real people. Sure, nobody wants to be a symbol for something that wasn't their cause, or be remembered in some... how to describe that? Only remembered for the manner of death. At the same time, people need to know what is going on with the war.

It is easy to justify war when you don't really consider the impact on real people. When you think about how horribly people are suffering and you consider what people will gain--and which people?--only then can one truly weigh the decision.

I think it is necessary to show people the uglyness of their decisions. To show that real people, that might have been their neighbours, are really suffering for some abstract cause.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I'm not comfortable with any publication or news program showing anyone, regardless of the situation, during or immediately after a violent death. No individual wants to be remembered that way.

But blood and gore sell print. And movies. Just look at how many sickos go and watch slasher movies. It is true that all media lack respect for both the deceased and survivors. Anyone that wants to see blood and guts should ride third on an ambulance for a while. It takes all the fun out of it.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
What are we up to now? a hundred and twenty nine dead? Most of them blown up by "roadside bombs". Maybe we should show exactly what happened to each and every one of them. I have a hard time believing in a war where there is no objective, no goal. We simply send our soldiers over there to play at a war that can't be won, between roadside bombs.
 

strange

Electoral Member
Jul 16, 2009
116
2
18
Toronto
you show domestic violence because it keeps people in fear of the known. You don't show soldiers dead pics because you want the public to be kept in the dark or the 'unknown'.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
That should be `Improvised Explosive Devices`....there, not so dangerous sounding now. Just a big ole home-made fire cracker.:smile:

What are we up to now? a hundred and twenty nine dead? Most of them blown up by "roadside bombs". Maybe we should show exactly what happened to each and every one of them. I have a hard time believing in a war where there is no objective, no goal. We simply send our soldiers over there to play at a war that can't be won, between roadside bombs.