This book sounds disturbing enough by itself, but it's just plain Orwellian-creepy that civilian and military officials would want to censor a text like this and keep it from the public. Based on this read, elements within the Army fought to keep it as an open source.
Kevin C. Kiley, a retired lieutenant general who was the Army's surgeon general when the book was being prepared, said some higher-ups in the military had been worried that the pictures "could be spun politically to show the horrors of war."
So, what's worse, political spin to show that war is not that bad, or political spin to show "the horrors of war"? The underlying implication is that if citizens really know that war is horrible (um, is that still up for debate?), then they will be less likely to support war. Expanding that, the implication is that if citizens see maimed Soldiers then they will lose the will to send more Soldiers into harm's way. Is it really that simple? However the thought process went for the would-be censors, it is clear that they thought it best for the general public to remain ignorant.
I guess this is just an extension of the same line of thinking that led to barring photos of Soldier's coffins and other images of US casualties (anyone follow the recent Zoriah Miller controversy?) I don't think there are easy answers to this stuff, and I can see how immediately published after-action photos could have security and intel implications, but I do think too much censorship diminishes the contributions of American sons and daughters and cheats the voting US citizens.
Half of the time I can see the purpose of this mission and half of the time I can't, but when I do see the purpose it is always informed by a consideration of the human cost. I can't make good decisions as a citizen without being aware of certain realities.
But, I have a different view of war because much of what I do is listen to Soldier's narratives. They tell stories about what keeps them up at night and I try to synthesize science and good old fashioned empathy into a salve to get them a measure of respite.
I admit that there is a part of me that wants all Americans to be respectful, thankful, and empathic towards our servicemen and servicewomen who are on the front lines. This is not respect just because they are "heroes", but also because for every five of these men and women who come back from combat, there is one or two who will have jarring, anxiogenic memories that will live on with unerring clarity for the rest of their lives.
Somehow I like to think that if the rest of us understand what they went through, then it will easier for them to make it.
There-- that's my circuitous and obliquely psychological argument against censorship.
I had better get to sleep.
Maybe tomorrow I'll write about the clever little FOB dog. But I won't tell you about what they did with the cats!
Kevin C. Kiley, a retired lieutenant general who was the Army's surgeon general when the book was being prepared, said some higher-ups in the military had been worried that the pictures "could be spun politically to show the horrors of war."
So, what's worse, political spin to show that war is not that bad, or political spin to show "the horrors of war"? The underlying implication is that if citizens really know that war is horrible (um, is that still up for debate?), then they will be less likely to support war. Expanding that, the implication is that if citizens see maimed Soldiers then they will lose the will to send more Soldiers into harm's way. Is it really that simple? However the thought process went for the would-be censors, it is clear that they thought it best for the general public to remain ignorant.
I guess this is just an extension of the same line of thinking that led to barring photos of Soldier's coffins and other images of US casualties (anyone follow the recent Zoriah Miller controversy?) I don't think there are easy answers to this stuff, and I can see how immediately published after-action photos could have security and intel implications, but I do think too much censorship diminishes the contributions of American sons and daughters and cheats the voting US citizens.
Half of the time I can see the purpose of this mission and half of the time I can't, but when I do see the purpose it is always informed by a consideration of the human cost. I can't make good decisions as a citizen without being aware of certain realities.
But, I have a different view of war because much of what I do is listen to Soldier's narratives. They tell stories about what keeps them up at night and I try to synthesize science and good old fashioned empathy into a salve to get them a measure of respite.
I admit that there is a part of me that wants all Americans to be respectful, thankful, and empathic towards our servicemen and servicewomen who are on the front lines. This is not respect just because they are "heroes", but also because for every five of these men and women who come back from combat, there is one or two who will have jarring, anxiogenic memories that will live on with unerring clarity for the rest of their lives.
Somehow I like to think that if the rest of us understand what they went through, then it will easier for them to make it.
There-- that's my circuitous and obliquely psychological argument against censorship.
I had better get to sleep.
Maybe tomorrow I'll write about the clever little FOB dog. But I won't tell you about what they did with the cats!
