Adopt a Servicemember, Put Faces on War

There was a recent Associated Press story and accompanying photograph of a young Marine from Maine on patrol in Afghanistan. Shortly after the photo was taken, the lad was shot and died later that day.
It was a true, heart-wrenching story. One that had to be told. The world must know, as it had to learn of the Holocaust, that war is a terrible, life-stealing, limb-shattering thing, regardless of its causes.
The New York Times subsequently published a story that reported the outrage of the Secretary of Defense over the publication of that photo and story. It stated he made a personal call to AP’s top executive in an attempt to keep the photograph from being published, in light of the Marine’s family’s request that it not be run. The debate will continue.
For the first time, Civil War photographers Matthew Brady, Timothy O’Sullivan and Alexander Gardner made glass-plate images of bodies, and the nation was shocked at the stark images. War was no longer a glorious thing, entered upon for valor and glory. It was seen for what it is; a deadly means to impose one set of values on those who oppose such values.
From an editor’s perspective, I can see both sides of the debate for publishing such images. War is ugly and unforgiving. Its horrors need to be seen and told, so that the public, who pays the bill for the carnage, has an understanding of just how awful a thing war can be.
Still, as gruesome as those images may be, and ought to be seen, why put the families of those in them through the agony of seeing their children or spouses covered in blood or with a lifeless expression on their face? There is no easy answer.
We can recall the horrors of Vietnam’s carnage through Larry Burrow’s images we saw in Life magazine. Our hearts were broken as we saw the photograph, from inside a helicopter, of a crying soldier over one of his lost comrades.
We recall, with horror and shame, the small, naked Vietnamese girl running from an attack on her village. It was ugly and tragic, and we know we would never want our daughters or granddaughters to be seen like that photo, but that photo showed war as reality. Sometimes reality is worse than our greatest nightmares.
We flinch when we look at Eddie Adam’s Pulitzer- Prize-winning photo of the execution of a Viet Cong operative by a police officer.
From a political perspective, published war photos are simply unthinkable. They threaten to undermine public opinion and support of multi-billion dollar appropriations to buy more bullets and bombs. When people see such stark scenes, they contact their congressional representatives and tell them they are opposed to war’s continuance.
Wars may be debated in the Capitol’s hallowed halls and on the floors of the House and Senate. War is keenly eyed by defense contractors, who stand to make untold sums by sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way.
“If it wasn’t for the DuPonts and Krupps, there wouldn’t be wars,” my father declared many times.
To be sure, wars are hated by mothers and fathers who get long-distance telephone calls or e-mails from their children in war zones. The fear goes deeper when they learn their beloved’s tours of duty are to be extended, or that they are to be transferred into the newest war zone: Afghanistan.
Prayers are immediately offered for the safety of those beloved children, once held so tight and sent on their way with tears. Newspaper and television accounts of battles in hard-to-spell villages in remote regions we never knew existed become very personal.
Ears perk up when they hear a report of a downed helicopter with crewmembers killed or missing. “Could it be?” they wonder. “Oh, God, no. Don’t let it be the one that Joey’s in.”
Parents with children still in school, nearing the age of military service, may be approached by a recruiter who seeks an interview with them or their children. They cannot avoid thinking about those stories or the photographs they saw, like the one of the young Marine from Maine.
Offers of a college education and enlistment bonuses are, without doubt, very enticing. War is largely fought by members of the low and middle class. There is great allure in such promises.
Guaranteed employment and regular paychecks offer a way out of poverty. The military has outstanding health benefits. It offers a place to learn a trade, if one has none upon entering. The military offers a ticket out of many small towns where the future is like stagnant water, where employment hopes include working in a fast food restaurant, pumping gasoline or selling illegal drugs.
Elected officials ponder polls and debate endlessly, but men and women in uniform follow orders, sometimes to their death. Such has been the universal soldier’s plight for the millennia.
To make war more personal and to put a face on statistics, I propose that every Senator and House member be made to “adopt” members of the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard from their districts and states. They would have to keep a photograph of those military people on their office desks, and personally communicate regularly with them. That way they could hear from the front lines what war is really like, what fears ensue, what good it does.
Short of sending congressional representatives into a war zone to visit hell, this would offer a perspective for them that, otherwise, those who send valiant men and women to fight and, possibly, die would never have. Its total cost would be less than one bomb or missile; the human value would be unimaginable.