Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, February 27, 2009

The End of the War of Images on the American Public

The Defense Department has reversed the Bush administration's ban on photographs of returning coffins of US military personnel killed in war abroad.

Apparently a lot of the families of fallen warriors liked the ban. Future such families will be able to keep it in place for their loved ones if they so choose.

But everyone should be clear that the Bush administration did not impose the ban for the sake of the families. It was a cynical move intended to disguise from the American people the cost of the Bush elective war in Iraq. And, despite the administration's occasional inability to control the visual record, it largely worked.

The American public saw a sanitized Iraq war, certainly compared to what was visible on Arab satellite television. We seldom saw the wounded or dead in Iraq (typically if US televison showed us the aftermath of a market bombing, it would just be the crater and some burning cars; it doesn't look like that). We almost never see an injured veteran on television, even though nearly 40,000 GIs were wounded badly enough to go to hospital.

The Bush administration set some of the rules, the US corporate media set others. The effect was to mask for many years from the US public the sheer horror of what happened there. Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly stood before the camera and told baldfaced lies. There was no looting. There was no guerrilla war. There was no civil war. Some people read Orwell's 1984 in high school and take it as a horrific warning of what could happen. Some apparently rather like what they see and take it as their how-to manual. Even to this day, unrealistically low figures are quoted for those Iraqis who died as a direct or indirect result of the 2003 US invasion, and more realistic projections by public health specialists are routinely rejected by the press.

The war dead belong in the first instance to their families, and it is right that their wishes will be respected. But they also do belong to the Republic, and we need to be able both to commemorate their sacrifice for the nation and also to gauge the degree of sacrifice the nation is making for an enterprise. The sleazy liars and propagandists of the previous administration wanted us to remain ignorant of those costs, wanted us to remain child-like and ignorant.

Indeed, the artificial separation of the war costs from the regular budget replicated in the arena of public finance the hiding of the bodies of the dead from the photographers. It even often fooled seasoned journalists, who gave budget deficit figures in the Bush years that ignored the expenditure of treasure on Iraq!

Now the wars will go in the regular budget, as they should have all along, so that the lazy are not so easily fooled. The whole Bush administration was a massive Madoff-like Ponzi scheme, made possible only because no one bothered to audit the books.

The new administration will need to be audited, too, of course. That is what a Republic is. But at least they are signaling that they won't stand in the way of the audit, and, indeed, will work toward transparency to help the public carry it out. Now that is a revolution.

End/ (Not Continued)

16 Comments:

At 11:37 AM, Blogger Michael said...

Professor Cole, I think it is worth pointing out that the image ban was initially put in place by Bush Sr. in February 1991 (during the first Gulf War). It was left in place for 18 years across the three administrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27coffins.html?hp

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger Kaiser Will said...

You are correct in that our fallen do also belong to our great Republic, however, this does not mean that we should allow the images of their deaths to be used for cynical partisan purposes. I served in Iraq for fourteen months and know that a vast chasm exists between what is reported and what is actually occurring. While the American media may not show the dead and wounded from say a VBIED attack they also make the situation in the country sound much much worse than it actually is. This ban should stay in place my fallen comrades should not become the subject of the defeatist, anti-American politics of cowardly journalists.

 
At 12:33 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Your post is really misleading. Why don't you mention that it was Bush Sr. that imposed the ban and that it was kept up by Clinton? Also, I think it's common sense that this was kept up out of respect for the families of slain soldiers, not for some right wing conspiracy. Making comments like these just discredits all the good points that you make on a regular basis.

 
At 1:44 PM, Blogger freude bud said...

"so that the lazy are not so easily fooled."

... most people are not paid to research

... & many of those who are uneducated on this issue work 3 jobs

so enough with the judgments which make so many people dislike the left, ok?

 
At 3:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I agree with everything you're saying here, it's worth pointing out that the ban on photographs was actually imposed in 1991 by Bush Sr.

This is, of course, not meant to absolve the more recent Bush administration's conduct with regards to the war. In my opinion, Bush Jr.'s policies were pretty brazen in their deceitfulness, but they were also the culmination of an ongoing trend towards sanitizing and whitewashing the cost of U.S. military adventures overseas - a trend which was perhaps inspired by public reaction to uncensored news coming out of Vietnam.

 
At 5:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you catch the headlines on Google News? Something to the effect of "War may be over, but plenty of fighting left to do."

America is the drunkard. Beaten, broke, pantless, and humiliated, and America is still rarin' to fight whoever still standing.

Shameful.

 
At 6:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano." Juan Cole 2005

"Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly stood before the camera and told baldfaced lies. There was no looting. There was no guerrilla war. There was no civil war."
Juan Cole 2009

You are awesome Prof. Cole!

 
At 6:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even to this day, unrealistically low figures are quoted for those Iraqis who died as a direct or indirect result of the 2003 US invasion, and more realistic projections by public health specialists are routinely rejected by the press."

That's true. Even setting aside the second Lancet paper in 2006 (which gave the 600,000 violent death estimate), various polls and surveys suggest a death toll several times higher than the deaths counted by IBC . The IFHS survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, gave a range that was two to five times higher than IBC's count for the same period.

Donald Johnson

 
At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole , from where you live , can you see Canadian television ?
There are no two more alike countries in the world than CANUSA , and few more different approaches to the price of valour .
When there are fatalities ,there is a Kandahar "ramp ceremony" where coffins are paraded to a flight home . Live on t.v. , then repeated on the news . When the flight arrives, usually , the Governor General and the Minister of Defence are on the tarmac .
Of course , , when families want privacy , that's it . No cameras , no nothin .
AF flights land at the east end of Lake Ontario , and autopsies are done in Toronto , so hearses travel 100+ mi. along Canada's busiest highway .
At every overpass , there are people , standing , in whatever weather , so the families in the cortege can see them . Some bring flags , most are just there ... and no government p.r. department arranged this . Lack of censorship lets people be citizens .
Two thirds of Canadians oppose the Afghan expedition , but that is just politics .

 
At 10:05 PM, Blogger super390 said...

Will and Pedro seem to believe the Canadians are traitors, not because they refuse to fight, but because they refuse to cover up the costs that might lead a democratic citizenry to change its mind. The war is sacred, long live the war.

 
At 1:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not know that Bush Snr brought in the ban, or that Clinton continued it. But can someone tell me where US soldiers were dying in during Clinton's administration (besides the Black Hawk Down fiasco)? If no one replies, can I humbly point out that the ban was not really an issue under Clinton, there being no war?

Seems like a hell of a long time ago, doesn't it?

 
At 3:55 AM, Blogger Kaiser Will said...

superp390 can you read? Because that's not what Pedro or I said at all. But alas, what can you expect from someone who won't even post under their own name?

Preventing the politicization of the deaths of brave Americans is not a cover up job. It is showing the respect that is due the dead. There is no draft, these man joined knowing what one of the potential fates was. A great many have either joined or reenlisted since these wars began. I think it may be safe to assume they support these wars and would not approve of their deaths being used for further anti-American propaganda. Those of us who have had the pleasure of serving our country in Iraq, know how poor and one sided the coverage is. If there is a cover up it is by the left of the success we have had.

 
At 3:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

super390

I never mentioned Canada in any way, good or bad. From my point of view, there is no refusal to cover up the costs of war by not showing the coffins. All I said was that declaring this a right wing conspiracy is a ridiculous argument. I willingly and honorably served in the US Army from 1997 to 2005 and I would not have approved of my coffin being shown on TV in any way.

 
At 9:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those of us who have had the pleasure of serving our country in Iraq...",

It must have been a pleasure! How often do you get to occupy a country for years, opposed only be civilians armed with light weapons and improvised explosives? And play soccer with bricks of $100 bills?
I know Iraq was tough as far as the womens go. For some reason those damned Muslims just refuse to hand their women over to the US forces wholesale. But who knows what you might accomplish with a few more years?

You are right, sir, so right! Compared to fighting an actual army with (God Forbid) heavy weapons, modern tactics and air power, it indeed must have been a pleasure. God only knows who you pushed into the line of fire so it would be a "pleasure" for you.
I hope, for your sake, sir, the War on Iraq doesn't end. If the American public ever gets a look at what today's Army (and the rest ) have turned our soldiers into, there just might be hell to pay. But as the old song says: How Ya' Gonna Keep Em' Down on the Farm, After They've Sacked Fallujah?"

 
At 9:59 PM, Blogger super390 said...

One million dead Iraqis later...

Have you read anything that Prof. Cole has been posting on this site for the last 5 years?

What I said is that Canada allows what you condemn in America on the grounds that it betrays the troops. So you are saying that Canada is betraying its troops by allowing coverage.

But what it comes down to, is that you don't want the war to be opposed. You're no different than Joe The Plumber calling for the murder of war opponents a few days ago. Do you think that if we kill another million Arabs, we will beat the Kunta Kinte out of them and make them good Republicans?

Well great. Your position lost when your beloved warlord president lost his job. We are sick of your war. We are sick of our country's bankruptcy by imperial overstretch. I just lost my job in the New Depression and my Republican governor refuses federal money to save our state unemployment fund. The war wrecked our national finances like Vietnam did, but worse, because Bush kept taxes down and Greenspan cut interest rates so the consumers would not make any sacrifice that might make them question the war. Hiding the coffins was part of that same criminal Orwellian management of an insane neocon strategy to dominate the world.

Go to Iraq on your own dollar to keep punishing Arabs for their unwhiteness. Your war used up my money and you can't have it anymore.

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger Povertysview said...

Prof Cole - Thanks for this article as well as the rest of your work. As a veteran and a current government employee I am very happy that SecDef Gates decided to revise this policy. As people like Andrew Bacevich and others rightly point out, the public is sheltered from the impact of war(s) and this might actually help Americans come to terms with the decision to go to war.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home