Robert Gates announced that he was reconsidering the ban on photography during the initial arrival of flag-draped coffins coming home.
Remember, if you will,
the original photograph that ran in The Seattle Times that got photographer Tami Silicio
fired in 2004. Silicio
was fired amid accusations that the photograph was being used to turn public opinion against the war. However, it was a reaction she was neither trying to garner or wanted. On Tuesday, Silicio was quoted in the Seattle Times:
"It was a passionate picture that they turned political," she said on Tuesday. "They should be honored coming home. They should be addressed. What parent doesn't want their child honored when they come home?"
Allowing coffins to be photographed more widely, she said, would put the focus back on the soldiers.
Herein lies the difficulty of coming up with a singular answer. There are historical, societal and personal perspectives, each leading to a different answer.
I remember the flag covered coffins coming home on planes during the Vietnam war. These made a profound impression on me, as I was aware that cousins, sons of neighbors, and others not that much older than me could easily be drafted. I felt, like many did, that I had something at stake that would affect me personally.
These photographs galvanized the anti-war effort. But for those who aren't aware, the anti-war effort was wrapped in many issues, which included a general challenge of
all commonly held beliefs, the loosening of restrictions on women, a recognition of racial inequalities, and the emergence of power of the lower and middle classes. What we knew was being questioned and taken apart. This was being done by the children of the men (and women) who had served in WWII and Korea and were raised during the commercial and cultural innovations of the 1950's.
Let's just say, it was an exciting time, but a crazy time.
Unfortunately, the legacy of the anti-war movement did have a demoralizing effect on our military. Somewhere along the line, most Americans associated it with negative stereotypes. Just one of the little acknowledged results was its effect on public policy. For instance, the erosion of VA Hospital funding, the chipping away of benefits for veterans. Undiagnosed PTSD, underfunded mental health services. But perhaps the worst result is what seems to be a permanent and growing military/citizen divide.
Service in the military
isn't an option that most college or even high school graduates would consider. In fact, it's not even a consideration for most parents of those children either. Proof of this exists in the change in demographics at the ivy leagues. Whether or not it's fair or wise, the ivies have become the petri dish for future presidents. But look at the sharp decline in those with military experience, as pointed out by
Frank Schaeffer and Kathy Roth Douquet in the book AWOL. In 1956 at Princeton, out of 750 graduates, 400 had served in uniform. In 2004, only nine graduates entered the military. This is less than one percent. Many ivy league campuses no longer have ROTC. But not to single out the ivy leagues, enrollment in ROTC in general at college campuses is either low or non-existent. In addition, fewer of those in Congress or the Senate responsible for voting on veteran benefits, military spending, or on international policy have military experience.
In other words, there's an enormous wall between those who serve and those who don't. The same groups are serving time and again. Hence, the lack of interest and more galling, the dearth of comprehension about today's soldier. Not to be overlooked is the danger of discussions about war, military, public policy, and life in general becoming less based on experience, and resting on incomplete perceptions. There is a feeling amongst many that they have no stake in either building or maintaining our nation. And why should they? Other people are doing it for them.
Which begs the question: Would allowing photographs of flag covered coffins assist in breaking down the wall between the military and the public? Would it lead to further support of the soldiers and families who serve our nation? Would it start chipping away at the apathy of those not serving?
Or would it be a great intrusion of a family's deepest tragedy? Would those families --who are often seen afar as some odd variety of bird, be subjected to not only the Glory bloggers, but the Anti-war bloggers during a time of grief?
So you can see, it's a big question that covers a lot of terrain. That original photograph has been photo-shopped to meet the needs of various people on
both sides. Unfortunately, because of technology on almost everyone's computer, there is little anyone can do to control this. It's
going to happen.
But the primary need we have to respect is that of the family of the deceased. I don't want the loss of life to be a photo op for
anyone's needs. While photos of funerals have become common in our culture --everything from parents of a drowned child to others slain by gangs, there has to be one arena where a family's grief is solemn, and their tears be unfettered by the click of a camera. If it's at an airbase as the coffins come off the plane, then let this be the one spot where things may be controlled. After all, once they step through the gates to the cemetery, they'll be in full view then.
Sometimes it just hits me. Other mid-lifers are not spending their lives like this. I mean, this is like we're just starting out all over again. New rules, new people, new locations, a husband mostly gone --and for me, a new life spent mainly with the kids while starting in a brand new career. The house is mostly unkempt, the dog eats the mail, the cat --as usual, is unappreciative of all these changes.
Posts
