Comments for H&I Fires 7 July, 2008

H&I Fires 7 July, 2008

2008-07-08T04:29:06Z

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.
********************************

Reporter says he's being blacklisted by Marines for showing the "cost of war" by posting the picture of a dead marine on his blog (all be it, behind a wall with warnings) because war is "too sanitized". Marines say he violated his agreement when embedding. Reporter says he posted it after the marine's family was notified. Marines say he gave the enemy valuable information on success of actions. Reporter says that information is all over the news and web.

My lone question to the reporter: if you die in Iraq, should the marines take a picture of your dead body and post it on the web where your mom, dad, wife or children might see it (considering, if you are dead in Iraq, there is a better than 50% chance it would be a closed casket due to the probable cause of death)?

If you didn't see it anywhere else or catch it in the post below, THE LARGEST RE-ENLISTMENT CEREMONY.

Majors Perspective has a conversation with a man from Pakistan. - Kat]]> *A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires. Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute. Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*. The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now. Of course, now I have to call them UAS's, because someone got a Legion of Merit for the name change.Anyway, I call the post H&I Fires because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to that particular topic. Another term of art that might be appropriate is Free Fire Zone.

Comment from AFSister on 2008-07-08

2008-07-09T02:03:39Z

Ymar,
I mean no disrespect. Photojournalists throughout time have always taken, and published, photos of unspeakable horrors. I am also aware of the story that goes with the napalm'd little girl, although many are not. That was just the first thing that popped into my head when I thought about "horrible pictures of the affects of war". Yon's famous picture of the soldier cradling the wounded child in the blanket is another one. The government has frowned upon letting the media show the battle scars, and deaths, for this war. Remember the ban on showing the flag drapped coffins? They're trying to prevent pictures like that of being used as enemy propoganda, and I understand that. But I have to wonder if shielding the American public of the true horrors of war is necessary or wise.

Again, all that being said.... if he broke the rules, he broke the rules, and should be banned. If, however, he DIDN'T break the rules, the rules need to be changed if that's the direction the US military wants to go. I also feel he showed very poor judgement in publishing a picture in which the deceased could be so easily identified. Tells me he was doing it for his own self-promotion without regard to the deceased's family. But we all know that showing poor judgement isn't necessarily against the rules- and it did get him the self-promotion he was looking for.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-07-08

2008-07-09T01:05:35Z

Semper FiWi... (sorry, couldn't resist) - don't worry about it.

Ymar - the stuff that DoD puts up is available for anyone to use - but if their photographers get gritty stuff, it rarely makes it to the DVIDS site.

Bloggers mine that stuff pretty regularly. The restrictions on use are pretty light.

The mainstreamers use 'em for small stories, but for big stories - they want "authentic" stuff.

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T22:13:02Z

Oh my god...I am so sorry. When I get worked up about something, my spelling/proofreading skills go out the window.
My fingers are just not as fast as my brain and my brain isn't Secretariat to begin with...:)
Sorry.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T21:01:35Z

John, I always got the impression that concerning main line stories, the photographs or video taken by the military themselves are almost never used on front page stories or stories that are front page material.

That may have something to do with the fact that the military doesn't want to propagandize to the American people concerning their mission, but in the end, I tend to think the military photographer and journalist position is not being exploited to its fullest potential.

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T19:36:57Z

the link is here to the article that I'm referring to.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/zoriah-the-pari.html

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T19:34:47Z

You've read the post that the Wold just put up? The one about setting up media embeds, etc.?
That only has two comments on it. One from me and one from one other commenter.
I don't think you're talking about the same post I am.

Second of all, he is the problem whether you like it or not. He took pictures as Marines were running around caring for the wounded and the dead Marines. He became at that moment, a dettriment to the morale of the unit. A unit that had just lost their ballation commander, F company commander and a Sgt. from H&S. That is why he had to be guarded until he could be taken out of the AO.
Their morale and their focus is crucial to accomplishing the mission. The photojournalist is not crucial to the mission. and if he ends up, as he did here, being a detriment than he's out.
And he is...out.
He will not be allowed to embed with Marines. Rightly so.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T19:19:59Z

I have read the post and comments at Blackfive. I am fine with never getting the whole story. My only concern is that they change the process for embeds so that this doesn't happen again.

Everyone is jumping all over this guy and calling him a POS. He's not the problem and questioning his judgement and agenda doesn't solve the problem.

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T18:37:18Z

If you go to Blackfive, the Wolf has a very interesting post up about the whole thing. We may never get the whole story on this but I'm not sure we're entitled to it either.

I'm glad he's away from the battalion. They don't need that right now. They have enough to deal with.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T17:45:04Z

SemperFi Wife -

If you are trying to say that the Marines told him it was okay to take pictures at the scene of the blast, I would strongly disagree.

I'm not. I'm not *trying* to say anything. My point was given the information we have on hand right now. Someone in command needed to have thought this whole embed thing through more clearly. Based on what we know right now, this photojournalist did not disobey any rules as they were given to him. That tells me that the rules were not properly fleshed out. We are five years into Iraq. We should have figured this out before this incident.

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T15:24:12Z

Okay, Maggie, as I wrote, I wasn't positive of that and I couldn't verify because the link wasn't working for me this morning.
that being said...with the situation as it was..the Battalion commander, the Sgt, Major, F company commander and others in that meeting at the time of the blast, clearly, the patrol didn't have the time to take him back to the fob. So they weren't bringing a photojournalist with them to photograph the casualites, they were bringing him with them because they didn't have a choice.

If you are trying to say that the Marines told him it was okay to take pictures at the scene of the blast, I would strongly disagree. Even if he says that. I'm not sure he is and I refuse to go back to his blog to verify. You can if you want.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T15:13:12Z

SemperFi Wife - According to his blog, they knew.

We are on a patrol in an outlying suburb, or slum area of Fallujah. It has been home to many violent attacks recently. We are searching homes for weapons and information regarding Al Qaeda in Iraq, when a message comes over the radio. “We have one killed in actions (KIA), and two wounded in action (WIA)… stand by.”

The soldiers begin to talk amongst themselves when a commander runs in. “Let's move… NOW! LETS MOVE!!!!”

We grab our gear, throwing on our body armor, Kevlar helmets, gloves, goggles, and other proactive gear as we run out of the house.

So until someone debunks his version, the Marines took him somewhere knowing there were dead and dying Marines.

Armorer - No I didn't notice. You know I am oblivious.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T14:39:11Z

Huh. That's what I get for letting the computer try to help me based on previous H&Is and doing it late at night. But, at least it got comments. ;)

Very Esoteric

Comment from BillT on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T13:32:55Z

...am I the only one who noticed this post is titled... "...7 March, 2008"... ?

Kat uses some very esoteric titles...

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T12:24:24Z

Maggie,
I don't think the Marines took him where there would be dead and wounded Marines. I tried to go back to his blog to verify but it's down. I think he was there to take pictures of the meeting between the local sheiks and 2/3.
Suicide bomber dressed as a policman comes in with 20 lbs of c4 and detonates. He's there and starts snapping pictures.

As I've written over at Blackfive, there are only 3 possibilities as to who that Marine was. The families will know. Why do that to them? Why do that to the Marine? Why do that to the Marines of 2/3 who, in one heinous act, lost their senior leadership?

I thought maybe today I'd feel a little differently but that's not the case. This still makes me sick. I'm glad Gen. Kelly booted him out of al Anbar. Hope MNF upholds his decision.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T10:59:04Z

So, am I the only one who noticed this post is titled... "...7 March, 2008"... ?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T10:49:46Z

Just an observation here, the "Combat Camera" guys will be very surprised to find out their positions as combat photographers aren't official any more, unless I misread what you said Ymar.

We may not be seeing some of their more gritty work (and there are pics they may just not take, true enough) but they're out there. That's where all the DoD imagery comes from.

Comment from BillT on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T06:39:29Z

Particularly, considering he could not keep his political opinions to himself and has now laid himself open as biased.

The Marines were being pro-active. There's no guarantee that sort won't do something to *initiate* an incident, just to get a photo. Call me paranoid, but even paranoids can draw lessons from previous observation...

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-07-08

2008-07-08T05:01:18Z

You know, the issue might not be that picture at all, as was indicated. I'm sure this gentleman is not going to tell everyone the whole story or any parts that make him out to be the bad guy. He may have done something else prior to the image that simply finally resulted in his removal.

In the end, it may not even be the "official rules" that made him persona non grata and a "threat", but the perceived injury/offense to the unit he was with made the situation unworkable. There is that "quid pro quo" in the "decency" category of an honest request. That is what this man seems to have violated in the idea that he was going to show something new and news worthy in the devastated body of the marine. It was neither new nor earth shattering "news worthy" and should have been considered in that reflection.

In short, this man was simply trying to become part of a cause or the story instead of simply telling a story. In that, he damaged his relationship with the unit he was with and the Marines as a whole.

No, I don't mean that these men would be so unprofessional as to put the man's life at risk or outright harm him, but I do mean that most units would likely refuse to work with him (ye old scuttle bucket working just fine, even in the desert). He would be unable to continue to do his job and any forced embed with a unit would be a distraction that could prove dangerous. Particularly, considering he could not keep his political opinions to himself and has now laid himself open as biased.

So, he could attempt to push himself back in through some hole in the rules or his expulsion, but I surmise it would an unhappy embed for him, stuck covering the motorpool. Maybe he could then cover the toll of war on our equipment?

Comment from Maggie on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T04:11:45Z

Ok, so the Marines let him embed. They knew he was a photojournalist. They had him sign a set of ground rules. They took him somewhere they knew there would be dead/dying Marines.

Now they are upset he posted pics of a dead Marine?

Someone needed to think this one out a little more clearly. The guy has a link to the ground rules posted at his blog.
http://www.zoriah.net/blog/files/media_hold_harmless_ground_rules_updated_1feb08.pdf

They have charged him with violating this contract, I don't see it. He's made his case over at his blog vis a vis timing etc. I will wait for the rest of the blogsphere to uphold or debunk his defense.

Other statements on the blog seem to make him out to be quite the asshat. However, in this one particular instance I can't fault his action. If the Marines don't want pics of dead Marines to be taken or made public under any circumstances, then put that in the ground rules. If they don't want photojournalists taking pics then don't allow them the means to do so.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T03:58:14Z

In direct reply to AFSister's comment here, the clear and present difference you can see between the actions of Zor and the photojournalist that acquired the picture of "Napalm Girl" should be enough to dispel any uncertainty concerning who was the one who actually did the right thing in terms of both capturing good photos and being a real human being.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T03:52:51Z

I remember the Vietnam picture of a RVN officer about to execute, by handgun, a sniper and assassin who had just killed the family of one of the RVN officer's subordinates. They posted this picture and it was used to show the atrocious behavior of corrupt South VIetnam and the American mistakes in the war.

I remember the napalm incident in which a young girl, naked and burned, was seen crying out in agony as she ran away from bombs.

http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/2005/09/nick-ut-and-napalm-girl-photo.html

Few people know the backstory because it was an inconvenient truth that would have interfered with the anti-war usage to which the photo was placed into.

Photographers are censored, more by their publishers and editors than the military, because that is how it has always been. Photos go for who is going to pay them. If people won't pay for certain photos, those photos get self-censored in the process and not published. But on a general explanation, the military is camping down on journalists because the proponents of imbedding in Bush's administration were politically torn apart in the aftermath of OIF 1. They lost much of their influence and confidence that the media could be entrusted with national security or national morale matters. Perhaps Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs didn't have FDR's ruthlessness in making Hollywood, the media, judges, etc bend their knees in fealty and obedience. But the end result is still the same.

The military does not trust photo journalists to get the story right, so they clamp down on the release of pictures. They even do it sometimes with Michael Yon and they definitely have done it concerning other stories with Yon, to America's detriment. Zarq man's letter, for example. You could have let Yon have the scoop and thus acquire a counter-insurgent reaction force where people had to pay attention to him because he was the guy with the goods. But no, you had to let the MSM have it by waiting.

A lot of good combat footage was taken by military individuals themselves, serving as photographers and cameramen. Why that isn't an actual official position anymore, seems rather inconvenient in today's hyper extended information and propaganda battlescapes.

Nick Ut recalled in a 1999 interview: "When we (the reporters) moved closer to the village we saw the first people running. I thought 'Oh my God' when I suddenly saw a woman with her left leg badly burned by napalm. Then came a woman carrying a baby, who died, then another woman carrying a small child with it's skin coming off. When I took a picture of them I heard a child screaming and saw that young girl who had pulled off all her burning clothes. She yelled to her brother on her left. Just before the napalm was dropped soldiers (of the South Vietnamese Army) had yelled to the children to run but there wasn't enough time."

Nick Ut used two cameras to photograph the scenes in front of him - his Leica and a Nikon with a long lens.

Not far from him stood NBC cameraman Le Phuc Dinh, who along with Ut is credited to have produced the best documentation of Phan Thi Kim Phuc's desperate run down Route-1. Le Phuc Dinh, who is shown at work in one of Nick Ut's pictures, used a 16mm film and sound camera.

Both David Burnett and Hoang van Danh changed film in their cameras during the peak moments of the action. Danh managed a few pictures when Kim Phuc had reached the line of photographers and soldiers and sold a few of them to UPI. "Nicky, you got all the photos," said David Burnett.

Nick Ut recalls that Kim Phuc screamed "Nong qua, nong qua" ("too hot, too hot") as he photographed her running past him. When the girl had stopped Nick Ut and ITN correspondent Christopher Wain poured water from their canteens over her burns.

Kim Phuc's relatives gathered around her and the reporters. Nick Ut heard her saying to her also injured older brother Phan Thanh Tam, "I think I am going to die." (Tam is seen in Ut's award winning picture, running alongside her, at left).

Kim Phuc's parents were still hiding inside the Cao Dai pagoda.

Urged on by Kim Phuc's uncle, Nick commandeered his car, and being one of the few reporters able to communicate with the injured villagers he took over and carried Kim Phuc into the car. Then other members of her family - her younger brother Phan Thanh Phuoc (5), her older brother Tam (13), her uncle and an aunt rushed into the car. Ut climbed aboard the now overcrowded minibus last and ask the driver to speed towards the provincial Vietnamese hospital in Cu Chi, halfway to Saigon. "I am thirsty, I am thirsty, I need water" Kim Phuc continued to cry. When the van moved Kim Phuc screamed out loud, obviously in great pain and then lost consciousness. Nick, beside her, tried to console her saying "don't worry, we will reach hospital very soon."

I do not know the military details, but it can be summed up as

"NVA invades and attacks South Vietnam, producing refugees"

"RVN responds with air strikes that happen to hit a family that didn't realize that the NVA was in the area and they needed to escape the war zone"

"By coincidence or just because there were a bunch of reporters seemingly on the roads going somewhere, this incident was caught on camera"

The lessons about how if you don't bomb the NVA in their home towns, then you're going to have to bomb them in South Vietnam when there are civilians they can use as shields, was never told, described, or reflected upon.

Nor was the compassion and help offered by an America, whose nation had already withdrawn from Vietnam, known when the photo was published.

Such things don't decide the course of wars. They are rather, more like the feather that broke the camel's back. You never know when enough will be too much.

Comment from Murray on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T03:15:59Z

M16 or Minolta.. hmmm...

None of my pistures were ever that good. Ok maybe one that used for a recuiting campaign but I got more hits with the firestick.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T03:14:40Z

That wasn't anywhere near War and Peace, Carrie. For something comprehensive like that, you might want to check out Obama's intent to create civil war in AMerica.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/06/13/watchers-council-results-2/

Comment from AFSister on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T02:30:32Z

Posting pictures of the dead, no matter who they are, is always brutal. War is brutal. Terrible pictures of dead soldiers and civilians have always been taken and published. Remember the pictures of burnt children running away from napalm attacks during Vietnam? Are those pictures any less offensive, just because we didn't know who those children were?

BUT. That does not mean he had the right to take and post the pictures after the Marines told him not to- and he agreed to their terms. If you want to be an embed, you must first get IN bed- with the rules of the unit you're with. Clearly he disregarded that agreement and now he's crying foul.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T01:43:55Z

When you're a citizen of the world, that means you can help any nation kill and blow up the civilians of any other nation. Convenient that way.

I dunno 'bout all this, since I'm in crack-crazed cat-herding hell... but I do know one thing that would make me a bad combat photographer.

That's cause your biased and bigoted and unable to take yourself out of the picture of the camera. A photographer's duty is to take shots of events, not to be in the center of such photos causing news.

There is a higher calling than actual participation in this reality, John. You must achieve the Zen like qualities of the journalist, in order to even be considered their equals.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T00:55:09Z

The journalists have a side, too, John. Unfortunately, it's usually the other side.

Despite their constant assurances of "objectivity" and the refrain of being a "citizen of the world".

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-07-07

2008-07-08T00:28:18Z

I dunno 'bout all this, since I'm in crack-crazed cat-herding hell... but I do know one thing that would make me a bad combat photographer.

I couldn't just sit by and take pictures.

Just like I couldn't embed with the enemy of my people to get a story, and report on an ambush that killed my side's guys.

Of course, that's why I'm not Dan Rather, I s'pose.

I have a side. Big one, too, in profile.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T22:45:57Z

Zor's friend that uploaded the pics and what not post, claims that she asked Marines and they said it was okay for the pics to be posted. Not sure how much of that is true or not. Did she know only anti-war Marine families that loved having pictures of dead Marines to showcase the horrors and mistakes of this war? Obviously, you might get a different answer if you asked other Marine families that don't share such views. We don't know. We don't know who she talked to. Zor's a journalist, their sources are beyond our ken and unfathomable to us lowly mortals.

So there seems to be some contention that Zor broke any of the imbed rules in the first place. Even if he didn't, I wholly understand why the Marines Corps wanted to get rid of his arse, and you will know why too if you read his blog.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T22:41:11Z

I didn't want to compare Zor's antics with the actual ethical standards of WWII journalists, Bill. Not even indirectly and unintentionally. That's why I only mentioned the D-Day photos of casualties and how the families and the nation would not have benefited from knowing the "cost" on that day, as it happened, or soon after it happened. The point of war is victory, not blowing people's limbs away and catching it on camera/video. This ain't no peanut gallery where you are scored by the judges on how much suffering you can create from photos.

Call me callous, but I'm not that upset by posting pictures of dead Americans. BillT mentions the notorious Iwo photos. Then there were the photos of the streets of Mogadishu.

That is because, as I mentioned at blackfive, photos can be used for any number of purposes. It can be used to show the horror of war and gain support for jihadists and terrorists and dictators that have devoted their entire lives to creating horror. Or it can be used to bolster people's morale in fighting such individuals and causes.

Photos of your dead can demoralize you, uplift you, make you sad, make you angry, make you any number of emotional states in existence. Part of it depends on your perspective and part of it depends on the intent of the editor/photographer.

Remember Cindy Sheehan when she was surrounded by like 25 reporters and camera equipment, yet the MSM used only a cropped angelic profile of her and only her face? That's editing and photoshopping lies right there.

Comment from XBradTC on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T22:02:58Z

Call me callous, but I'm not that upset by posting pictures of dead Americans. BillT mentions the notorious Iwo photos. Then there were the photos of the streets of Mogadishu.
But here we have a reporter who agreed to embed with the Marines, presumably knowing full well the rules for doing so. When he decides he doesn't like the rules, he breaks them. And then he complains that the Marines want him to follow the rules. I guess I don't need to follow any rules i don't like either. What a narcissistic tool.

Comment from BillT on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T21:21:29Z

One comment I *didn't* see you make was with reference to the photo of the Marines killed on the beach at Tarawa -- that photo wasn't released until a year had elapsed for fear that it would dishearten the Home Front at a critical time in the war.

Comment from BillT on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T21:16:54Z

Couldn't really say, Ymar. My connection timed out twice before I finished...

Comment from Carrie on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T19:09:34Z

Ymar...it was like War and Peace in installments...:)

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T18:51:47Z

Oh Btw, BillT, did ya think I wrote a little bit too much on Blackfive's blog in relation to this story?

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-07-07

2008-07-07T18:12:15Z

Actually, the best thing to do to such a person would be to have him photograph a death scene, then have another photographer, a Marine, photograph him taking pictures of the dead.

Then write a story about how others were helping the injured and removing the dead, this vulture was trying to make a career for himself.

The only reason why ethics existence, is because of the Circle of Justice, otherwise known as Meta-Golden Ethics.

Don't do things to weak people, unless you want stronger people to do the same to you. Don't post propaganda stories about big bad Marines and Army soldiers trying to do good, and then expect your efforts to be seen only in a "sanitized" perspective.

If war is horrible enough to deserve to be photographed, then the photograph that glorifes in other people's death should also be photographed and made known to the world. Unless, of course, the photographer is supposed to be hidden and immune from something nobody else is when they are on camera.