News

Facebook DIGG

4,000 US Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images

by: Michael Kamber and Tim Arango  |  Visit article original @ The New York Times

photo
Stefan Zaklin, a photographer who was working for the European Pressphoto Agency and embedded with a United States Army company photographed this soldier, who was shot and killed in Fallujah. After the photograph ran in several European publications Mr. Zaklin was banned from working with the US Army.
(Photo: Stefan Zaklin / European Pressphoto Agency)

    Baghdad - The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war. Zoriah Miller, the photographer who took images of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of the country. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq.

    If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists - too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts - the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers.

    It is a complex issue, with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.

    While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins, the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.

    But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see - in whatever medium - the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans.

    Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners' rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.

    And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the "embed" rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military.

    "It is absolutely censorship," Mr. Miller said. "I took pictures of something they didn't like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don't see a clearer definition of censorship."

    The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.

    "Specifically, Mr. Miller provided our enemy with an after-action report on the effectiveness of their attack and on the response procedures of U.S. and Iraqi forces," said Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a Marine spokesman.

    News organizations say that such restrictions are one factor in declining coverage of the war, along with the danger, the high cost to financially ailing media outlets and diminished interest among Americans in following the war. By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.

    In Mr. Miller's case, a senior military official in Baghdad said that while his photographs were still under review, a preliminary assessment showed he had not violated ground rules established by the multinational force command. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, emphasized that Mr. Miller was still credentialed to work in Iraq, though several military officials acknowledged that no military unit would accept him.

    Robert H. Reid, the Baghdad bureau chief for The Associated Press, said one major problem was a disconnection between the officials in Washington who created the embed program before the war and the soldiers who must accommodate journalists - and be responsible for their reports afterward.

    "I don't think the uniformed military has really bought into the whole embed program," Mr. Reid said.

    "During the invasion it got a lot of 'Whoopee, we're kicking their butts'-type of TV coverage," he said.

    Now, he said the situation is nuanced and unpredictable. Generally, he said, the access reporters get "very much depends on the local commander." More specifically, he said, "They've always been freaky about bodies."

    The facts of the Miller case are not in dispute, only their interpretation.

    On the morning of June 26, Mr. Miller, 32, was embedded with Company E of the Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment in Garma, in Anbar Province. The photographer declined a Marine request to attend a city council meeting, and instead accompanied a unit on foot patrol nearby.

    When a suicide bomber detonated his vest inside the council meeting, killing 20 people, including 3 marines, Mr. Miller was one of the first to arrive. His photos show a scene of horror, with body parts littering the ground and heaps of eviscerated corpses. Mr. Miller was able to photograph for less than 10 minutes, he said, before being escorted from the scene.

    Mr. Miller said he spent three days on a remote Marine base editing his photos, which he then showed to the Company E marines. When they said they could not identify the dead marines, he believed he was within embed rules, which forbid showing identifiable soldiers killed in action before their families have been notified. According to records Mr. Miller provided, he posted his photos on his Web site the night of June 30, three days after the families had been notified.

    The next morning, high-ranking Marine public affairs officers demanded that Mr. Miller remove the photos. When he refused, his embed was terminated. Worry that marines might hurt him was high enough that guards were posted to protect him.

    On July 3, Mr. Miller was given a letter signed by General Kelly barring him from Marine installations. The letter said that the journalist violated sections 14 (h) and (o) of the embed rules, which state that no information can be published without approval, including material about "any tactics, techniques and procedures witnessed during operations," or that "provides information on the effectiveness of enemy techniques."

    "In disembedding Mr. Miller, the Marines are using a catch-all phrase which could be applied to just about anything a journalist does," said Joel Campagna, Middle East program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

    New embed rules were adopted in the spring of 2007 that required written permission from wounded soldiers before their image could be used, a near impossibility in the case of badly wounded soldiers, journalists say. While embed restrictions do permit photographs of dead soldiers to be published once family members have been notified, in practice, photographers say, the military has exacted retribution on the rare occasions that such images have appeared. In four out of five cases that The New York Times was able to document, the photographer was immediately kicked out of his or her embed following publication of such photos.

    In the first of such incidents, Stefan Zaklin, formerly of the European Pressphoto Agency, was barred from working with an Army unit after he published a photo of a dead Army captain lying in a pool of blood in Falluja in 2004.

    Two New York Times journalists were disembedded in January 2007 after the paper published a photo of a mortally wounded soldier. Though the soldier was shot through the head and died hours after the photo was taken, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno argued that The Times had broken embed rules by not getting written permission from the soldier.

    Chris Hondros, of Getty Images, was with an army unit in Tal Afar on Jan. 18, 2005, when soldiers killed the parents of an unarmed Iraqi family. After his photos of their screaming blood-spattered daughter were published around the world, Mr. Hondros was kicked out of his embed (though Mr. Hondros points out that he soon found an embed with a unit in another city).

    Increasingly, photographers say the military allows them to embed but keeps them away from combat. Franco Pagetti of the VII Photo Agency said he had been repeatedly thwarted by the military when he tried to get to the front lines.

    In April 2008, Mr. Pagetti tried to cover heavy fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City. "The commander there refused to let me in," Mr. Pagetti said. "He said it was unsafe. I know it's unsafe, there's a war going on. It was unsafe when I got to Iraq in 2003, but the military did not stop us from working. Now, they are stopping us from working."

    James Lee, a former marine who returned to Iraq as a photographer, was embedded with marines in the spring of 2008 as they headed into battle in the southern port city of Basra in support of Iraqi forces.

    "We were within hours of Basra when they told me I had to go back. I was told that General Kelly did not want any Western eyes down there," he said, referring to the same Marine general who barred Mr. Miller.

    Military officials stressed that the embed regulations provided only a framework. "There is leeway for commanders to make judgment calls, which is part of what commanders do," said Col. Steve Boylan, the public affairs officer for Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. For many in the military, a legal or philosophical debate over press freedom misses the point. Capt. Esteban T. Vickers of the First Regimental Combat Team, who knew two of the marines killed at Garma, said photos of his dead comrades, displayed on the Internet for all to see, desecrated their memory and their sacrifice.

    "Mr. Miller's complete lack of respect to these marines, their friends, and families is shameful," Captain Vickers said. "How do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?"

    Mr. Miller, who returned to the United States on July 9, expressed surprise that his images had ignited such an uproar.

    "The fact that the images I took of the suicide bombing - which are just photographs of something that happens every day all across the country - the fact that these photos have been so incredibly shocking to people, says that whatever they are doing to limit this type of photo getting out, it is working," he said.

--------    

    Michael Kamber reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from New York.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

?Freedom of the Press? The

?Freedom of the Press? The Constitution has been killed by Bush. Where are those pictures? Where is the uproar? Suppressed as well....

Coming from the same people

Coming from the same people who brought us Guantanamo and other black holes through which detainees have been dropped, "citing prisoners' rights" is laughable, as well as unacceptable.

Unlike the Viet Nam war

Unlike the Viet Nam war where the press showed daily casualities and body counts, Cheney/Bush and their stooges have really sanitized this war. American media rarely publish any photos of our dead troops, whether graphic like these photos or the flag-draped coffins in the back of aircraft. The most graphic photo seen as of today has been the 4000+ little green army men that a school teacher put together to show her class the real visual impact of the cost of this stupidity. Are we getting any Iraqi oil yet....? Where are the WMD?

That crap about a photo of a

That crap about a photo of a soldier's body after he has been killed following the orders of his commanding officers and the direction of the President of the United States demonstrating a "complete lack of respect" is utter rubbish. We are supposed to have a democracy and the political leadership is supposed to ultimately be responsible to the electorate and the electorate needs to have complete information, including what a dead solider looks like, in order to be able to make informed decisions when it comes time to vote.

What a ludicrous excuse for

What a ludicrous excuse for a free country the United States is. Military leaders consider these unpublished photos an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades? What dignity? The US is an illegal occupying power, guilty of a wide array of war crimes, not the least of which was the initial aggression which began this descent into red, white, and blue, all-American barbarism. And what about the dignity of the Iraqis? And the fact that "most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy" gives stark evidence, as if we needed any more, that the MSM is neither free, nor is it objective, nor fair, nor balanced. Such conformity would perhaps not have surprised Orwell, but I find it staggeringly totalitarian in nature, and fascist in its consequences. And then there's this little beauty: The US Department of War is "citing prisoners' rights" as a justification for their refusal to allow photographers! Since when has the US cared about the rights of these people? And of course the NYT, which never saw a war it didn't love, can print this tripe without so much as a hint of irony. And while we're on the subject, since when did the US care about its military? It sends them into battle for empire without the proper equipment, and provides little if any support after they return. Another NYT quote, again without a hint of irony: "Mr. Miller's complete lack of respect to these marines, their friends, and families is shameful," Captain Vickers said. "How do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?" What is shameful here is not Mr Miller, but the US government. Indeed, how DOES one explain to their children or families the disgusting nature of the US empire's war for hegemony, the death of their loved ones based on outright lies, for nothing more than lining the pockets of the already wealthy? Perhaps that is the real reason none of this is allowed to sully the illusion of what is in reality a war of pillage--it might actually result in such revulsion among the American people that this illegal and immoral war, so profitable and so useful for the fascists and tyrants in the White House and Congress and the War Department, that it might just result in a demand that this war, and the system which supports and profits from it, might be called into serious question. But in this war, as in so many other things, the American people are treated as children, told what they can see and what they cannot, by fools and knaves who believe themselves to be our protective parents. The day of the collapse of this predatory empire cannot come soon enough.

I've heard rumors that they

I've heard rumors that they are suppressing the number of battlefield deaths, as well. Impossible to know if they're true, but considering that our government now seems to be composed of obsessive liars, it seems like the smart money would be on not trusting a damned thing they tell us. I've also heard that they've re-defined "battlefield casualties" so that if someone bleeds out when they're technically off the battlefield, like on their way to hospitals, then they aren't a "battlefield" casualty. Sounds like something they'd do. After all, they've re-defined "terrorist" to exclude themselves when they're ordering the use of illegal cluster and incendiary bombs on women and children. This whole thing reminds me of the way Nazi Germany could lose whole units, and there would still be a pin left on the map for the Fuhrer to see. Like it never happened. Our leadership (or should I say: fuhrership?) apparently has the same blinders on, living in their own little fantasy world where our troops are perfect "war-fighters", super-men who never lose. Meanwhile, the kids in uniform are dying to help keep this national delusion alive.

We are disconnected from

We are disconnected from having real control of our government. The media was supposed to be one of the checks and balences, but like our government it has been bought. We always have the choice of the lesser of two boll weevils. Once they are elected, they do whatever they want, break the law etc. Television is nothing more than a brainwashing tool. If they can't show us dead bodies, they could at least report about them. What if all the news from truthout was available on television? Most would not watch it because it is too real, but many minds would be changed eventually. The system is so corrupt it corrupts us. We do not need to be mindless consumers (more!, more!) The system is so broken, it will not hold.

no wonder that there are

no wonder that there are only a half a dozen western photographers in Iraq. What does the military expect them top take pictures of - the fast food joints in the "Green Zone." We can't get rid of these war criminals fast enough!!!!!!

It is appalling that

It is appalling that American irresponsibility should lead to so many horrific deaths, and we never feel any guilt or change our ways because we cannot see the results of our decisions. The photographs and images of the casualties must be shown so that we appreciate the weight of our choices. More drunk-driving accident photos NOW! More crane-accident photos NOW! More autoerotic asphyxiation photos NOW!

We saw it in our living

We saw it in our living rooms every night, the Vietnam War . It was on our minds every day because we had an un-restricted press then. We need to see it to believe it .To See it every day would make us all outraged as we should be . That is exacty why we are not free to see realaity .

I believe that many of us

I believe that many of us will long be gone before the world finds out the truth about all the doings of the Bush administration. Someone above mentioned how they don't believe the official body counts of the OCCUPATION of Iraq. NOBODY that has followed events believes anything we are told by BushCo. HERE ARE SOME NUMBERS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE: CONFIRMED US DEATHS: 4,124 (4,438 includes fatalities of other nationalities) WOUNDED: 30,324 (300,000 are getting medical attention from what I've read.) IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS: 86,312 – 94,174 (This figures by IBC is estimated to be maybe ten times this by other counts, doesn't mention the number of wounded which must me astronomical.)

General Kelly and the other

General Kelly and the other responsible Marine Officers in this decision should read Clausewitz. The philosopher of war clearly stated that war is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that it is different from others. He also stated that the illusion persists that war can be carried on without spilling blood. Contemporary history has destroyed this illusion, but no one can guarantee that it will not sooner or later reproduce itself, and lead those at the head of affairs to perversities which please man's weakness and therefore have the greater affinity for his nature." May we succeed in lending a hand to those in our dear native land who are called upon to speak with authority on these matters, that we may be their guide into this field of inquiry, and excite them to make a candid examination of the subject." General Kelly and his subordinates would be well advised to heed these words of Clausewitz if they are to continue to have public support.

It seems $700 billion ought

It seems $700 billion ought to buy a few photos from the battlefield, it has bought so little else. Rather, our money has been handed BY THE BUSHEL to overcharging, underperforming corporate contractors, and the insurgent tribal groups in order for the military to be able to cite progress to Americans back home via a compliant press. An utter outrage that any military commander or their PR agents think they can tell Americans they cannot see the results of what has happened in an occupation that WE have paid for. The American imperial forces are on the march, People. Of course there are so many examples of imperialism in Iraq, from Bremer's tenure, to the corporate oil deal, to the (permanent) megabases (that are not permanent) Congress must not only impeach Bush and Cheney immediately, but also do the hard work of investigating the entire sordid mess even if it takes a decade.

It's what any intelligent,

It's what any intelligent, well read American knows---the Bush Administration (and its powerful corporate buddies) are suppressing information about their blood money cash cow occupation of Iraq. Ooooh, photos might tell the truth! You couldn't tell by Fox Faux News spewing only tabloid spashes and Rupert Murdock's propaganda. The "free press" was last seen during the Vietnam War and the loss of it as a conscience for our government is sorely needed. I guess we just keep screaming out loud about the illegal, wasteful, death-filled conflict in Iraq. God help us because the "free press" can't---they're censored by the military industrial complex.

i spent my time in Iraq and

i spent my time in Iraq and plan on going back within a couple months. Everyone speaks of freedom of the press and saying that my United States is a ludicrous excuse for a free country. If you want to talk about freedom put in your time in a combat zone, see how they live, see how they react to what we do. The Iraq's had no sense of freedom of the press when they were allowed one government controlled channel, they were kept in poverty all there lives. I helped personally setup a school, i handed deprived men, women, and children food and water, i gave them my own shoes and not worn out trashed ones. Why would you want to see pictures of our dead Marines and soldiers? Does it make you people feel better when you can see a fellow American dead? Or do you even consider yourselves American anymore because all i have to do is go to a news channel or a website and read comment after comment bashing the same country I will if needed give my life for. Without the backing of Americans all I end up doing is ensuring that my brothers and sister in the USMC and our sister services leave the wire and come back safe. I wish that the same people that I protect would grow a pair and spend some time in a combat zone, living day by day and all you want to do is see your brothers make it home. I personally don't think they should publish pictures of my fallen brothers but if you sickos want to see that then you have more problems than what you say my USA does.

If there were pictures shown

If there were pictures shown daily of just half of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan the American people would have no excuse for not being in the streets demanding the end to the occupation. There is no excuse anyway. The only people we see being consistent in the patriotic demand for America to act up to our highest ideals are Veterans For Peace, IVAW, and Code Pink, people who know that war is a racket and that we must inform our public servants that they must serve the interests of the people and not the interests of the corporations. One of the most important actions we must insist on is that the military take back its own support system, flawed as it might have been, it still cared about taking care of its own. Defund the KBR's that don't care if they execute our servicemen, and the other corporations of the same ilk, and the Blackwater mercenaries who put our troops in danger by their lack of public oversight and outlaw and cowardly culture of killing for money.

The reward for the failure

The reward for the failure of the citizens of Germany was Hitler, for the Russians Stalin, for the Italians Mussolini, for the Japanese Tojo and for us in our empire it will be or already is Bush.

As an Ex-Marine I understand

As an Ex-Marine I understand how they feel. To see one of your brothers with his brains or guts blown out and blood all around the body is a little too much to take. Its not a matter of censorship, its a matter of good taste. To drag the first amendment behind you whenever you want to shock the public isn't good journalism. Its just the same as when Howard Stern drags the first amendment behind him when he does things in extremely bad taste. I don't see anything wrong with showing all the flag draped coffins or reporting the casualty lists daily. I'm against this so called war and all the reasons given for it. Still, show some respect for a man who did something I'm sure most of you haven't done and wouldn't ever think of doing. He volunteered. He signed his name and took an oath. He put his life on the line and he gave that life. Just show some respect for men and women like him.

How about a few fotos of the

How about a few fotos of the inept lice in the WhiteHouse and their corporate pimp handlers ordering more murders for money?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.