Tracking Al Qaeda in Iraq - After The Anbar Suicide Bombing

© Zoriah/www.zoriah.com : blog use permitted : use credit : link to zoriah.com : permalink to this post

I am not happy about the fact that I have become the news, as all I came here to do was document the news.  I feel that I need to continue to stand up for what I believe in and fight for the rights of all journalist here and those who may come here...so I will do so.

This blog is about photojournalism though, and I want to keep the attention on what is going on in Iraq, not just what is going on with the issue of freedom of press.  I will continue posting work from my embeds this summer, starting with this post.

-

Photo:  U.S. Marines search a home near Garma/Karmah in hopes of gaining more information regarding the attack on the 26th of June.  These searches and information gathering operations also help maintain as much security in the area as possible.

EDIT: The Multi National Force Iraq (MNF-I) upholds my rights to keep my credentials, minus the ability to document U.S. Marine operations. I would like to thank all of these senior officials for refusing to make decisions based on unsubstantiated claims. Click here to read my July 7th post.

Comments

[douglas]

After reading just a little of your blog, it is clear that it is all about you. It is no wonder that you were able to overlook common decency and publish these photos in spite of the fact that you were living with these Marines and owe them something.

As for your preposterous notions that people need to see this to understand what war really is, well, do your photos show us anything more than pictures from any other conflict? It's not like gory photos of war haven't been available before (for instance "Just Another War"-Jarecke,Cervenka), and those with the stomach for them have/will see them. There is no inherant artistic value or informative value to the pictures you took at the bombing sit(possible exception, the old man in the chair). Certainly not the photo of the dead Marine. Get over yourself, get over the idea that people can/want to be shocked. Those who look will not be shocked, those who don't don't want to be, and won't be reached this way anyway. So where does that leave you? It leaves you as a purveyor of anti-war porn. Feeling good?

Besides, by your logic, you could save many more lives coming back home, and taking pictures of awful traffic accidents (40-50,000 dead every year!). Why not post those to educate people about the importance of driving safely and soberly? Why doesn't anyone do that?????

Think about it and maybe you can still figure it out. Though I won't hold my breath.

[Dave]

You done good man. You are doing your job.

The people here in the U.S. are rapidly losing what was once called human nature and its associated empathy.

I've lived here over 60 years and have seen a lot of crap: from the civil rights movement to the anti war movement of the 60's. These were all vilified by the authorities. They were also all righteous.

People can be changed is what this history reveals. The humanity of people can be touched by reality and moved to react.

What has happened here is that the main stream media has desensitized us to violence and it is more and more difficult to touch the soul of people.

I'm so glad I found your blog. I've shared it with as many as I know.

I will keep it's link in my main website.

[Chris]

As a father of a Marine in Iraq, I hope the Corps makes you walk home.

Let's hope your parents don't see your head crushed from a bomb.

[Mac G]

Screw the haters. I would love for any of them to walk a day in Iraq or be put in any of these truly hopeless and dangerous situations.

The US soldiers are pawns for the Neocon and Bush Admins never ending war games. Iraqi deaths are seen as collateral damage.

Your blog is needed to see the REALITY of our American occupation of Iraq, what a truly dangerous place it is, and the complete gutting of their society.

Thanks for your postings.

[innocent bystander]

thank you, zoriah, for resisting censorship

i did not need to be convinced of the horror of this war, but perhaps these images will be seen by the people who, like george bush, think this war is glamorous

[Semper Fi Wife]

It is clear that those who believe the narrative that "all is lost in Iraq' will flock to your blog. You feed them the poisonous fruit they crave.
and those of us who actually live in the real world will hate it because words like "duty, honor, and respect" don't live in your crappy fake one. Sacrifice doesn't either.

I'm with the Marine dad who hopes you have to walk home. I do not hope your parents have to see what a bomb could do to your face. Unfortunately for the Marines you were embedded with, the families of those who fell that day, will see exactly what that looks like.
Congratulations, you're a two legged vulture. You didn't have to be.

[maltwo]

Its interesting how this is the only war since film arrived on the battlefield where it is considered "disrespectful" to show dead marines/soldiers. WW2? No problem! It was a righteous war! People were inspired by the scenes of sacrifice! KOREA? Also A-OK we were fighting commies after all, it was really important! also TV didnt have nearly the penetration that it did later on in VIETNAM: wait a minute... This is not working so good any more. The war is unpopular, the scenes of sacrifice every night on the 6 o'click news are not so inspiring any more. In fact they are starting to look more like scenes of carnage and slaughter.
Fast forward to the GULF WAR AKA the same B&W 10 second clip played over and over on CNN for 30 days. The military has learned its lesson. This is censorship to control "negative" imagery, just like the decision to forbid footage of the thousands of flag draped coffins coming off the planes.
This is not about "respect" it is about sanitizing the battlefield.

[Oscar Blanco]

Ahead with your work animation that do not want to hold your job, congratulations and TE from Mexico TE Mandar the strength to move forward.
Thank you for showing the horrors of war IN IRAQ

[senorlechero]

As a father of a marine who has done 3 tours in Iraq I want you to know something......you are below comtempt.

Enjoy your 15 minutes. You'll soon enough be forgotten.

[Natali]

The only thing disrespectful that has happened on this blog are the people who want to ignore and manipulate death into statistics rather than real human casualties. Zoriah is doing what Western media should have been doing from the start. It might disrupt your comfortable, over-privileged day to be faced with the consequences of what our governments have done, but so it goes. It's a responsibility as unselfish human beings to expose ourselves to the consequences of our actions.

By the way: the thinly veiled hopes that Zoriah suffers massive injury from so-called "parents of marines" are absolutely disgusting. You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. If you're genuine parents of soldiers fighting out there, I hope to god that your children have not absorbed such a callous attitude towards human life. I also hope your children come home safe, regardless of what they might have had to do to survive out there.

Zoriah, you're doing the most amazing job, I'm sad that so many people feel the need to crap on what you're doing and how you're risking your own life to report what you're experiencing. I hope this war doesn't have a long lasting negative affect on you and that you're safe wherever you go.

[senorlechero]

Natali...you are typical of the liars that are turning "evil to good" and "good to evil". There have been no "thinly veiled hopes" that this moron blogger is injured. Quite the opposite, hopes were expressed that he IS NOT injured and that his parents would not suffer the same misery he has caused.

But you, because you hate what is good and only love the evil you imagine is good, twist the words of a parent.

There is no honor in what has been done by this blogger, except in your twisted imagination.

[senorlechero]

My post above should have said "thinly veiled hopes" from "parents of marines"

[Labrys]

I am so sorry to see the hatred I see in the comments here. I have a son who is a veteran, disabled (tho' not by war) and home and another who will doubtless be in Iraq by year's end. I am not offended by your pictures; I think the nation, the world at large NEED to see what war really is and need to know what is done in Iraq in the name of the citizens of America. I do not want you injured or walking home, I want you safe and like you, I largely feel it is not about people like you and I, but about those who have to do the fighting commanded by those who sit safely in marble halls. I hope you do not mind that I have blogrolled you on my own blog website.

[Mike D]

I have to admit , I wanted to generate news about you and your situation (eh, I blogged about it, told friends, etc.). But it was more to put pressure on the military to keep your embed going. I was under the impression they were going to ship you out of there. Reading this blog is by far the best news source(media source? I can't think of a better word) and prevents me from becoming just another complacent american about the issues in Iraq. Also, it does so without having some agenda or a mindless advertising campaign, and for that I greatly thank you.

[mark Aleshnick]

I fight against these atrocious wars of colonial aggression and political expediency every day. Many days, I am so depressed that i don't even feel like getting out of bed. These disgraces against everything america claims to stand for singe my soul to the very depths of abject despair.

You, Zoriah, are like a beacon of light in the valley of darkness. It is you, your work, your courage and dedication to truth that provide me the strength to carry on.

The world is truly a better place because people like you refuse to be silenced despite the braying masses arrayed against you. May G-d bless and keep you.

[blewoutmyflipflop]

Once again, people, getting mad at the photojournalist will solve nothing. If a picture is taken and displayed, the act of doing so does not make that person any more, or any less dead than if the picture had never been taken and revealed. Where is your outrage when the AP posts pictures of dead Iraqis online? Remember, the Iraqis are not supposed to be our enemy, so again, where is your outrage then?

Zoniah, your situation resembles that of the AP reporter who spent more than a year in jail in Iraq without a single provable charge against him. From the April 2008 issue of Harpers (much shortened):

"Bilal Hussein belonged to a team of Associated Press photographers who received the profession's highest award – the Pulitzer Prize – for their coverage of fighting in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2005. One year ago today he was seized by U.S. Forces in Iraq. He has been held in continuous custody since that time."
[...]
"U.S. officials indicated they lacked solid evidence on seven of the allegations and could not reveal the evidence they did have on the other two allegations because it was classified."
[...]
[According to his lawyer:]
"From my own examination of the case and discussions with U.S. representatives, I was convinced that Bilal Hussein was seized and has been held in captivity for the last year for one reason: the Pentagon was embarrassed by the photographs he took of the fighting in Al-Anbar province. They contradicted the message the Pentagon was putting out about the nature and scope of fighting in Al-Anbar and senior figures in the Bush Administration were particularly galled that the AP won the Pulitzer Prize for its photographic coverage of the war. The Pentagon wanted to send a message to the entire press community in Iraq: Cross us, and we can just lock you up. And we don't need reasons. This is justice in the style of the Bush administration."

The entire article is here:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-photojournalist-in-custody?redirect=1495886296

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of Pew Research Centers, updated their Survey of Reporters on the Front Lines last year.

Included was this brief story:

'Journalists did describe embedding relationships that have gone awry. “I was kicked off my embed when a new unit I was to go out with suffered its first casualties,” one newspaper correspondent wrote, describing one of the most extreme situations recounted by the journalists. “I was locked in a room for hours and then told I was no longer welcome with unit.”'

http://journalism.org/node/8645

Let us know if there is anyway some of your new fans can help you in the form of research or something.

Best,

[FreedomRings4U]

You are a typical media POS and am sorry to see that you cannot see past yourself to do the decent thing and NOT post a picture of a US Marine fatally injured in battle to promote your misleading BS on the web. It is quite typical of your ilk to do this so I am not surprised. These men and women stand up 24x7x365 to protect your freedom to express your f'd up, eyes closed, head up the ass view and you turn around and piss on them as if they were nothing. You should be thankful the Marines in Anbar "excused" you before your worthless punk face was blown off covering the action and posted on the web so your family and friends could have in horror possibly "stumbled" across the photo. You are everything that is wrong with the media today and hope that you've made a name for yourself now that will end your "career" as a "journalist(?). You call this your right to "Freedom of Speech"??? You don't have even a vague inkling of what your freedom costs everyday. All I can say is watch your ass butt munch! AMF!

[douglas]

"Its interesting how this is the only war since film arrived on the battlefield where it is considered "disrespectful" to show dead marines/soldiers. WW2? No problem! It was a righteous war!"

It helps to actually have knowledge about the subject you are addressing before laying it out in black and white in public. The first photo published in America in WWII was over TWO AND A HALF YEARS into our involvement in the war. It was also published TEN MONTHS after the photo was taken, and the photo was completely anonymous. At least get an understanding of history before you invoke it to prop up your pathetic arguments.

Those of you who think this blog is a great source of news information, you've obviously never heard of Michael Yon, or Bill Roggio, or some of the pretty good blogs from the troops themselves, for instance Lt. G at his blog KABOOM.

Here's a thought. If his stated goal was to wake people up to the reality of war, why did he even feel the need to hide the image behind click-throughs? Why not keep it on the home page, right up front for everyone to see? Isn't his keeping the photo on a back page an admission that it's not about getting in the un-informed's faces about the reality of war? It's on a back page because he knows what it is- it's anti-war porn. If you look around on the web, the most gruesome photos of war are always on the anti-war websites. It seems there's always a strange attraction to the grisly for them. I don't even like horror movies- not because I can't stomach them, but because I just don't find them entertaining. Clearly, people like Zoriah are big time horror movie fans. And anti-war porn afficionados. I think it's a sickness. Really.

If he really wanted people to understand the reality of war, he'd take a trip to Walter Reed, and talk to the guys there. It's tough to call that 'sanitized', but at least it has dignity. and honor. Things he apparently knows nothing about.

[mark Aleshnick]

Freedomrings4u, the poster above me, talks from the comfort and safety of the cocoon he's chosen to live in blindered by the realities of the world and these atrocious wars.

His audacity in mentioning honor and dignity is beneath contempt - probably one of those Fox News junkies who worship at the alter of rush, hannity, o'reilly and coulter and the rest of the contemptible media complicit in allowing the slaughter to go on unencumbered by truthful reporting.

68% of the country reject these wars, and thanks to the courage of those like Zoriah, these numbers will only increase, until the blood thirsty cretins. who mouth vacuous platitiudes, while thinking a bumber sticker indicates support for the troops have been silenced.

Zoriah, on the other hand, affirms his support with his body and soul. You. who cannot comprehend this, should be ashamed of yourselves, as you watch the country spiral deeper and deeper into terminal decline, whilst you swill your beers, maintain your mindless "sports" addictions, and presume that your weekly doses of "reality" television bear any semblance to the reality of the world you live in.

Zoriah is reality - the rest of you chickenhawks are but poseurs.

[Shanyn]

I have lost two people dear to me to this war and my brother in law is in the Middle East right now. My neighbor will be going for his 3rd deployment in three months.

These pictures make me so very sad. But I have to say that the comments only compound that sadness. Hatred and intolerance begets hatred and intolerance. How much more history do we all need to recount to prove that fact?

You are in my heart Zoriah and I hope that you are safe everyday. Thank you for following your passion and your heart in your work, I hope that you can move through enough of the tragedy and sadness to continue life in that vein.

[Melissa Chi]

Zoriah, you've got my respect and admiration for standing up to people who think they can control people like you (real journalists) to publish only what they want...

I think it's really important to tell the world the truth... don't hide the ugly nor the beautiful... show them as it is..

People will appreciate it... and it's really unfortunate that there are so many haters out there... especially those who direct their anger to journalists who are actually just the messenger...

To those who don't agree with Zoriah - was it because you don't want to see the ugliness of reality? or are you too afraid to actually be angry towards those who fuel the war??

Fight for what is right.

ps. without people like Zoriah, those in power have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want - without the world even realizing... can you imagine living in that world?????

You've got the responsibility to not see that happen. Yes, every single one of you out there.

[douglas]

Well, Mr. Aleshnick, I admire your honesty in using your real name in posting a comment purely of ad hominem attack, with no substance whatever. It stands on it's own merits (or lack thereof).

Tell us, Zoriah; Besides the MNF-I hold harmless agreement you posted, didn't you also sign this one:

http://www.defenselink.mil/NEWS/FEB2003/D20030210EMBED.PDF

In that agreement, didn't it say the following?

"4. The media employee agrees to:
a. Participate in the embedding process and to follow the direction and orders of the
Government related to such participation. The media employee further agrees to follow
Government regulations. The media employee acknowledges that failure to follow any direction,
order, regulation, or ground rule may result in the termination of the media employee’s
participation in the embedding process."

And:

"8. The media organization and the media employee understand and agree that the Government
may terminate the embedding process at any time and for any reason, as the Government
determines appropriate in its sole discretion."

Therefore, your assertions that the Marines aren't playing by the rules as you understood them is fallacious, correct?

If you want to complain about the rules, fine, complain. Perhaps you forgot about that release. Now, let's just be honest and drop the notion that you followed the rules and the Marines unjustly dis-embedded you.

Again, I challenge you to address the issue of putting the photos behind click throughs on a back page, and how that subverts your reasoning about the purpose being to wake up those who are 'ignorant' about the realities of war.

It's a ludicrous idea anyway, that people just need to see these images and they'd want the war stopped today. Some people I know who have seen such grusome realities up close, are fully aware of the realities of war, and would rather not see those images, nor think they should be published in this manner. None the less, they support the war. How would you explain that?

I find it interesting that all the supportive postings here have no rationale for why it was proper to publish these images, only that they like your political stance, and therefore support you. Any means to the 'approved' end, eh?

And how does it feel to be a purveyor of anti-war porn?

[Saxlor]

This is truly a breathtaking blog. You seem to be capturing the day-to-day life of a soldier in Iraq. I'm so sorry for what has happened and for the censure and "dismissal". It astounds me that the very "freedoms" the military fights for are the very same "freedoms" they censor. The whole situation is frustrating to witness. I applaud you for not backing down and I wish you the best. Ignore the naysayers. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

[douglas]

Umm, he is not being censored in any way shape of form. He is completely free to run around photographing whatever he wants in public areas in Iraq, but he will no longer be allowed to do it while embedded with the Marines. That is their prerogative. I mean, c'mon, they didn't even take away his camera or data storage with the images in question. How can you say he's being censored?

[nilk]

Douglas, he's being censored because everyone says so.

As for the "day-to-day" reality of life of the soldiers (sic) in Iraq, well, you wouldn't understand that unless you were there and one of them.

I'm not there, I'm not one of them. I wouldn't dare to wear the arrogance of that comment.

For those reading this far, who have actually served their countries (or indeed still are), God bless you all.

For Zoriah, perhaps a little more consideration for the dead.

Those we fight against have no respect for the dead - their own or especially ours - so why on earth would you want to be like them?

See: Green Helmet Guy, islamic porn and all the rest that google has to offer.

Unless of course, you can't beat them so you want to join them.

I'll add you to my prayers tonight, sir.

[mark Aleshnick]

Douglas, who hasn't the courage to post his full name, but expresses admiration of me for posting mine condemns me for ad hominem attacks. He overlooks my comment that when 68% of people oppose this war, the concept of representative government has effectively been abbrogated.

Further, in contrast to you, Douglas ___, my words are closely scrutinized as I live in u.s. militarily occupied Okinawa where I share this island with 50,000 pawns in this misguided ill-conceived genocide conceived by a evil coterie of liars and deceivers who have never served.

In contrast to you, I know these guys - I interact with them on a daily basis, and they know my views quite clearly

So my pro-war porn afficionado. who is it who walks the walk
where the real battles are being raged, and who is it hiding behind his glorified typewriter?

It may come as a surprise to you that many of these servicemen feel TOTALLY betrayed by the endless screwing they've received at the hands of the chickenhawk republicans. It also may surprise you to know how many are refusing the blood money offered for re-enlistments and defying stop-loss orders; and it certainly will probably come as a shock to you when McCain and the whole republican hierarchy is resoundedly defeated soon.

Mind you, the dumbocrats and conventional media are equally complicit. but it us the g.o.p. who will bear the 1ST barrage of pent up shock and awe.

Silence IS complicity, and ever our military brothers in arms have finally come to see that the phrase does not apply only to the Nazis only.

How much respect do you think these soldiers have who signed up to avenge 9/11 and OBL and hear POTUS claim: (I) "truly am not that concerned about him," as they watch their families struggle in the destroyed moral and economic climate this errant "cakewalk" Iraq venture has left.

All the while you live in a crude world of delusion that allows your sick mind to equate opposition to war with pornography. That in itself speaks volumes about, what a small minded little blood luster you really are.

[blewoutmyflipflop]

@Douglas 8:18 AM

And all the others that have so self-righteously detailed their contempt for Zoriah in these pages...

Thanks for the link to the February 2003 DOD archives where I found an interesting article from the American Forces Press Service, dated Feb. 26, called "If War Starts, Battle Coverage to Be Unprecedented."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29382

4th paragraph:

"Clarke didn't deny that live coverage could possibly lead to AMERICAN VIEWERS SEEING AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE IN BATTLE. "War is not a pleasant thing," she said. "That's why the president and others are trying so hard to exhaust every possibility, so that (armed conflict) is a last resort.""

[Clark = Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.]

5th paragraph:

"Such open coverage is only possible because media representatives and defense officials have spent countless hours drawing up media "rules of engagement." Clarke said cooperation between major media outlets and the Pentagon has been extraordinarily close in recent months to determine how best to facilitate news coverage."

8th paragraph:
"The assistant secretary refused to allow Lauer to categorize such broad coverage as propaganda. On the contrary, she noted, OPENNESS IS THE U.S. MILITARY'S WAY OF COUNTERING IRAQI PROPAGANDA."

Obviously, the military and the embeds knew the rules going in and had accepted the possibility of dead American soldiers being displayed in the media. Nothing in Zoriah's Nov. 2007 agreement nullified any of the above. http://www.zoriah.net/blog/clarification-definition-.html
It is the Marine commanders that are out of line, not Zoriah.

[mark Aleshnick]

And for you armchair warriors like nilk who speak of respect for the dead, don't for a moment think we are unaware of the military drop-gun policy, where almost all units carry captured weapons, so when innocent civilians (collateral damage, please you more?) are murdered in their homes and beds, the weapons can be used to classify those civilian casualties as would be terrorists.

"Clever" bunch of deceptive liars, the new american war machine.

And do any of you violence loving stay at home warriors have the courage to listen to the only true heroes in this abomination - 200 currently active military and veterans who have offered to repeat this testimony of u.s. war crimes under oath in front of Congress:

http://ivaw.org/

[douglas]

Mr. Aleshnick. I'm sorry you're so full or anger and rage. So full of it that you can't dialogue civilly, or rationally. I made no disparaging remarks about you personally, but criticized your post as being ad hominem (which is simply fact). Why this should prevoke such outrage is curious. Perhaps you should reflect on that a while.

So, you said:

"Douglas, who hasn't the courage to post his full name, but expresses admiration of me for posting mine condemns me for ad hominem attacks."

Well, I use my actual name, though not full. even if i used my full name, it's common enough that it wouldn't make me much less anonymous anyway, so I'm being as straightforward about who I am as I can, really. And I merely stated that you were making ad hominem attacks, and leaving the value judgement to the reader. You call that condemnation. Interesting.

"He overlooks my comment that when 68% of people oppose this war, the concept of representative government has effectively been abbrogated."

Of course, the problem with that is that we haven't had a Presidential election in three and a half years, so there's been no abbrogation whatever. We'll see what the people want this coming November. Democracy lives, you can relax a bit.

"Further, in contrast to you, Douglas ___, my words are closely scrutinized as I live in u.s. militarily occupied Okinawa where I share this island with 50,000 pawns in this misguided ill-conceived genocide conceived by a evil coterie of liars and deceivers who have never served."

Well, plenty of anger there. I'm curious, if these are your feelings, how on earth did you end up in such a circumstance? And just what circumstance is that exactly? It's unclear from your comment. Oh, and while you are correct that I never served, when you wrote this, how would you know anything about me? On what grounds do you make all these assumptions?

"In contrast to you, I know these guys - I interact with them on a daily basis, and they know my views quite clearly"

O.K. Good for you, I guess. Again, you know nothing about me, but assume away.

"So my pro-war porn afficionado. who is it who walks the walk
where the real battles are being raged, and who is it hiding behind his glorified typewriter?"

Well, I'm not sure how I earned the title 'pro-war porn afficianado' since I've posted no pro-war porn at all, whatever that is. By the way, last I checked, there wasn't any combat action on Okinawa, at least not in a few decades. Have you been deployed in the past? As for me 'hiding behind my glorified typewriter', well, will the military take asthmatics on daily inhalers? I thought not, but perhaps I'm wrong on that. Besides, are you saying that if you want to comment on the war, you've got to have skin in the game? That would leave most of your ideological comrades out, wouldn't it? I don't think you really believe the chickenhawk thing, do you?

"It may come as a surprise to you that many of these servicemen feel TOTALLY betrayed by the endless screwing they've received at the hands of the chickenhawk republicans. It also may surprise you to know how many are refusing the blood money offered for re-enlistments and defying stop-loss orders; and it certainly will probably come as a shock to you when McCain and the whole republican hierarchy is resoundedly defeated soon."

I suppose I'd be completely unsurprised. I do know that reenlistment rates are above target. ["The army sets goals each year, for the percentage of troops who will re-enlist when their current enlistment (usually for four years) is up. This past year, about 14 percent of troops in each combat brigade were expected to re-enlist. Nearly all brigades exceeded this figure, with the most spectacular being the 4th brigade of the 25th Infantry division, which had 37 percent of its troops reenlist."] As for those who do not want to re-enlist, good for them, they shouldn't.

"All the while you live in a crude world of delusion that allows your sick mind to equate opposition to war with pornography. That in itself speaks volumes about, what a small minded little blood luster you really are."

Well, it speaks volumes about your tendency to make assumptions and illogical extensions. I stated that I thought Zoriah was a purveyor of anti-war porn, because he hid a photo that he defended as being essential for people to see, behind click throughs, on a back page. Inconsistent logic. I believe that one can be opposed to the war (even all wars) and be honorable and logical, and reasonable. Here, I have found little evidence of such. But don't let me interfere with your generalizations.

But hey, you're not really interested in any discussion, you just want to bash me with your virtual club. If it helps your blood pressure go down, please have at it.

[douglas]

Flipflop,

The problem with the article at the link you provided was that it was specifically talking about "live coverage", in other words, live video feeds, not still photographs. Besides, even in the hold-harmless agreement that Zoriah himself showed you (if you followed the link) it says:
"(11)(b)DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals “killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next ot kin and in accordance with current legislation. Names of KIAs may be released after the DOD announcement has been made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for those announcements."

Now I know what Zoriah's argument is- that he did wait until after notification, and followed the letter of the rules, but he then wants to posit that therefore, the Marines have no right to dis-embed him. Of course, they in fact do (see my July 9th, 11:33 comment). But that's really an aside. What is really at issue here is ethics, and common decency. Some will counter that a greater good is served by posting the picture. I say, if that is so, post it right out front and center. Give it away to spread the news far and wide with no limitations or burden from the desire to make a profit. Print posters of it and put them up around town. If you aren't going to do any of those things, I question the premise that it was necessary to post it at all.

You know, you'd think that you guys would at least gove some credit to the military for allowing him to embed at all. Had he simply followed the request of that unit to not post that one picture, he'd still be embedded. But hey, he's 'sticking it to the man!'. Yeah, that's working out well. Way to move the cause forward, dude.

[mark Aleshnick]

Of course Douglas would be loathe to infirm you as he reports on enlistment rates, that qualifications have been continually lowered.
Felonies that previously disqualified wnlistees have been waived, and the latest figures from the Army show that one in 5 haven't even completed high school.

People like Douglas like to report only what is favorable to them.

Oh, and as for action in Okinawa, military personel and flights ship out of here EVERY day to theater, so I think I am much more qualified to report on military attitudes than our typewriting warrior.

The rest of your post is nothing but blather and subterfuge, so I'll leave you with your delusions.

[mark Aleshnick]

"Mr. Aleshnick. I'm sorry you're so full or anger and rage."

Oh, and one more thing, if the thought of 4,000 needlessly dead americans and countless Iraqi civilian casualties doesn't fill you with anger and rage, then you are way beyond any kind of redemption.

[nilk]

At the risk of sounding flippant first off, Mark, looking at your education system in the US, one in 5 army members not finishing high school rather shows good judgement.

And as an armchair warrior,well, I'll just add that to the list of names I've been called.

You don't seem to get it. So many people commenting here just don't get it.

Zoriah may be a good photographer. He may be a photographer.

That is not the point.

The point is, he doesn't seem to have any sense of decency towards the dead.

I've seen the islamic war porn. I've visited Ogrish and before that rotten.com.

I know where to go if I want to find pictures of bodies.

I don't.

I want to know what's happening on the ground to our guys without an anti-war agenda being pushed down my gullet.

Zoriah can show humanity and decency and put the camera away a few posts back when it's an Iraqi man losing a child, but when it's his own people, he'd rather keep taking photos.

He also has a disdain for the rules, as evidenced by his posting of photos taken in Kuwait when he was aware that it was against regulations.

That is neither respect nor decency.

At the very least it's bloody rude, and at worst, his blog provides photographic evidence of where our side are living and under what conditions for the enemy.

Way to go.

[mark Aleshnick]

If you find it rude, and if you imagine disdain for rules, there are plenty of sites left for the 1 in 3 who still support this crazed venture.

Why waste your time on a site that you can neither comprehend, and all the disinformation you attempt to spew is amply disproved?

Go preach to the choir.

Those who come here read and investigate - they know things that will take you years, if not a lifetime to ackowledge.

[douglas]

"People like Douglas like to report only what is favorable to them."

It's just an effort to lend some balance to the discussion. For instance, the lowered standards you mention, it should also be said that it only applied to less than 1% of enlistees. Do you think that significant? Do you think people convicted of non-violent felonies, if showing remorse and a desire to make good, should be allowed an opportunity in the military, or do you think they should be left with no options?

By the way, I'm not sure how as an ESL teacher in Oki, that you know so much about the military and the attitudes of it's personnel. But if you say so, fine.

As for the 4000 deaths- I don't think they were unnecessary, however, we tolerate 40-50K unecessary deaths every single year here at home in traffic accidents. What are you doing about that? Why isn't Zoriah mounting a huge campaign of showing people gruesome photos of traffic accident victims so that, in the words of John Muir ("How to Keep Your volkswagen Alive")- "If we all constantly drive as if we were strapped to the front of the car like Aztec sacrifices so we'd be the first thing hit, there would be a helluva lot less accidents."

So if it's American lives you're out to save, there are more urgent matters.

What's it really about then?

[Martyn]

Seeing as my last post regarding this coward was not posted, I will rephrase my words.

Zoriah Miller. Your name is carved into the minds of the Marines in 2/3. We hate you. You lie when you say that you had our support. You have none and I know for a fact that many of us echo the sentiments expressed by an Echo Co Marine when he said "that he hopes to see you again so he can smash your camera into your face." You are a self serving liar.

You do not seek to represent truth, you photograph what will get you noticed by the liberal media outlets in the world. I notice that you have not a single conservative organization that has used your work. Why might that be? Because you are baised, and your hatred and disrespect towards those of us in the military is shown in the way that you do no honor our fallen.

I can identify the fallen Marines. I have friends that can do the same. I guess that removes that little loophole for you huh?

The biggest mistake that the Marine Corps made was letting your sick, demented mind anywhere near our operations. You were going to paint a horrid picture the first chance you were given. And you did. You f*cking coward.

You dont even care to address those that you work(ed) with by their proper term: MARINES... not Soldiers. Yet great diligence is placed in making sure that the public sees fallen heroes.

To all those that think that Miller is accurately portraying the operations that go on over there, quit your jobs and don some armour and do patrols up and down the streets of Karma and Zaidon... then tell me that this traitor speaks the truth. Until you do that, you are a pathetic individual that is senselessly injecting uneducated and irresponsible comments into a realm that needs not and ought not respect them.

Lets see if freedom of speech is so respected by those that dont want to hear our voices. Laurel post this... let the truth come out. I have kept my comments focused on the work of the traitor.

By the way... your know what Zoriah Miller... it was also in your best interest that you leave. There isnt a squad of Marines with the knowledge of what you did anywhere in the world, let alone Al Anbar that would allow you under their blanket of security ever again. You are best off in the green zone in Bagdhad you traitor, you insurgent, you coward...

[mark Aleshnick]

"What's it really about then?" douglas asks;

Oh, it's really much "ado about nothing." - It's about a single word. GENOCIDE.

The traitor, douglas, is you - you have turned your backs on the original intent of the framers who wrote the constitution; the constitution which ALL military members pledge to defend.

That pledge does not say ANYTHING about defending ANY war-bent administration.

And don't pretend with your smug ESL remark to know anything about me or what it is I do here.

I DO, however know you and what you do HERE.

Your primary intent is to obfuscate with totally whacky remarks about traffic fatalities which are NOT in the slightest germane to the subject of this blog; and inane contentions of how recruitment is going swimmingly, and then tail between your legs
maintaining that 1 in 5 failures to complete hugh school is but a small percentagem and something to be proud of.

My quotes are CURRENT DOD figures, and the decline on standards and felony admissions is increasing. You cherry pick your facts, much like the administration cherry picked their WMD "evidence."

You should be ashamed of your infantile, devious deceptions, but you aren't. As I said before, you haven't the capacity for "rage or anger" against indefensible injustices which the whole world recognizes as well as 2/3 of your countrymen

[nilk]

Laurel, there is a small issue of "context."

By all means, record what is happening, but bear in mind at all times what is actually going on that's not in the bigger world.

If you read Zoriah's text, look at his images, it's easy to see (for me, at least), that he feel himself above the rules that govern the rest of us.

As Martyn above commented, Zoriah does not even have the respect for Marines to call them Marines. He calls them "soldiers."

I've got friends in the Marines, and the one time I made a comment about soldiers I was roundly smacked down.

Marines are not soldiers.

In my defence, I'm australian, and we don't have Marines, so I got off lightly!

As an embed, Zoriah should have been one of the team. He should have had more care for the rules that the Marines and other troops live under.

He didn't.

He shows disdain for those who would willingly give their lives so he can take his photos and put out his one view of the world.

What would Zoriah lay down his life for? Anything?

God bless your father for his service, and I agree with him that the world needs to see more of the war on the news and in the papers.

But we need to see the whole picture. We need to see terrorists celebrating when they kill our people.

We need to see the chicanery of those who would bring down the country that provides the greatest freedom to man ever known.

We need to have an open discussion about islamist supremecist ambitions - what jihad really is, and how our men and women are fighting it.

Zoriah does not do that.

He does not inspire. He degrades the service of those who died in his presence.

[nilk]

Bugger. Apologies for the typo.

"supremecist" shoudl be "supremacist"

And Martyn, God bless you, too.

And thank you.

[mark Aleshnick]

"We need to see the chicanery of those who would bring down the country that provides the greatest freedom to man ever known.

Cramming our perverted definition of democracy down the world's throat, whether they like it or not - FIFTY military interventions since WWII:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

Why do they hate us?

[mark Aleshnick]

Douglas, our resident typewriting warrior pontificates upon matters which he is TOTALLY clueless about. When I first mentioned that i live amongst 50,000 military members in Okinawa, the largest concentration in all of SouthEast Asia, his response: "By the way, last I checked, there wasn't any combat action on Okinawa,"

A real nowhere man, siting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

Where did you think military members deploy from? Do you grow them in your backyard?

[L.Drummond]

Mark, Mark, Mark.

Have you read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights? The one that declares sharia as the basis for all legislation?

Aside from that, I notice from your link that the Cuban revolution was apparently a Good Thing.

Have you visited http://www.therealcuba.com/ lately?

In any case, why is it that whenever there's trouble in the world, it is always America that's expected to do the heavy lifting?

Why have the majority of Nato countries allowed their militaries to atrophy? Could it be their confidence in American might and goodwill?

We aussies are known to punch above our weight in times of trouble, but you guys are there first and get a whole lot more done than we can.

This is not actually a Bad Thing.

nilk

[mark Aleshnick]

nilk, nilk, nilk; douglas, douglas, douglas

nilk, "Aside from that, I notice from your link that the Cuban revolution was apparently a Good Thing." Your conclusions are exactly that YOUR conclusions.

Got any qualms about torture as a means of spreading democracy:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/12/10308/

And nilk, a little disengenious of you to pick one of fifty cited interventions, wouldn't you think?

Yeah, I can hear the braying reponse already - the International Red Cross is a bunch of liberal /commie sympathizers!

[L.Drummond]

Mark, there are very few charitable organisations I support - http://www.barnabasfund.org/ is one, and http://www.kidswithcancer.org.au/ is another.

I also donate online to various causes.

International Red Cross is not one, but American Red Cross has been known to receive my money. Not that I should have to wave my credentials at you.

You speak of torture under American auspices. Going by the experiences of our very own David Hicks, that would mean getting well fed and exercised.

I'm sure those members of the Iraqi soccer team who had the great (mis)fortune to lose under Saddam's sons would much rather be in Gitmo than Baghdad.

We can prate on about America's eeevil reputation for ever, but that takes us off the topic.

Which is... why Zoriah's work could be considered war porn, and why he could have, just perhaps, considered a little more carefully before posting his photos of fallen Marines.

Again, there are plenty of sites out there that will provide us with all the war porn we could ever want and then some, but that still does not tell the whole story of what is happening over there and how it affects us all in the bigger scheme of things.

nilk

[mark Aleshnick]

Nilk purveying still more of HIS disgusting, disengenious. disinformation;

"You speak of torture under American auspices."

Learn to read - those are NOT my allegations - they are the allegations of the Red Cross.

You want to retreat to "on-topic?" His posts were 100% within the regulations. You can squirm and squiggle all you want.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but when all is said and done, it is still a pig.

[nilk]

Mark, I've not wanted to be a boy since I was 8 years old, but good work. I've only had XX chromosomes for 40 years so far.

Zoriah may have been "100% within the regulations," as you say, but there is a difference between the word of the law and the spirit of the law.

These things seem to be a bit difficult for some people.

In any case, the Marines were well within their rights to terminate his embedding.

According to regulations.

I guess they can't justify it enough to satisfy you - Zoriah should be able to peddle any photos he likes when he likes and regard for the families and friends of those Marines be dammed.

There are some things you won't get, and real compassion appears to be one of them.

[mark Aleshnick]

Compassion, nilk, is not just a word to for you bandy about whilst pretending to care.

While your tax dollars helped pay for 9 more dead servicemen in Afghanistan today, your continued defense of what is clearly indefensible to nearly the entire world and 2/3 of your fellow countrymen is your burden to bear.

Silence is complicity. Leading the cheerleader brigade is far worse than that. Clearly the lessons of Nuremberg fall on your deaf ears.

[douglas]

Mr. Aleshnick, really, I pity you. You seek out conflict and use it to vent your rage. You legitimize your rage by buying into all sorts of questionable stories and ideas. You seek out the echo chambers you consider honest sources and fell emboldened in your rage. It will destroy you, eventually. Look within yourself, and see if you can find a way to tame the rage. It is unhealthy.

By the way, there are about 26,500 U.S. military personnel based in Okinawa, not 50,000. There are only 40,000 in all of Japan. You can't even get that right. Really, this should make you wonder how you could be wrong on something so close to home for you. Perhaps you shouldn't lean on that as a credential.

And I'm still waiting for some kind of statement from Zoriah. I assume he's busy trying to get re-embedded.

[douglas]

Laurel,
I appreciate that you must feel besieged by ill will of late. Please understand that it isn't about the ideology- so your fathers politics are irrelevant. It's about insensitivity and disrespect. It's about confusing a shocking image with one that is moving or inspiring to action. It's about bemoaning getting dis-embedded while, frankly, there are bigger issues out there.

So, while I harbor no ill will personally toward you, or even Zoriah, I feel compelled to make it clear why many think it was inappropriate to post the controversial image when he did.

"My parents are shocked at what Zoriah and I have experienced after posting Zoriah's blog diary about the attack."

Really? You should try to imagine what the response could have been. I think, for the most part (and there are always some), it's been pretty civil, if unpleasant for you all.

"Why are people in our United States military allowed to express hate or make violent threats against their own citizens without anyone stepping in to stop them?"

Technically, they're not permitted to make violent threats, and I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard for Zoriah to get an investigation started into any threats you have received from any posters who are actually active military. They do however have every right to express hatred, though I would caution them to temper their words.

"When Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center, and photojournalists documented Americans dead and dying, did we vilify the journalists? How many members of the police force, firefighters, and military threatened journalists and tried to ruin their reputations because they had their cameras out and documented American deaths?"

Had any of them showed an identifiable shot of firemans remains, don't you think there'd be a reaction? Think of all the shots that we didn't see. I'm sure there were plenty. I think someone already mentioned that we didn't see any shots of people embedded in the ground after jumping. I'm sure we could have. Certainly photographers at the scene could have taken those pictures, and I suspect many didn't even do that. Had they, I'm pretty sure they would likely never publish them, as it'd be seen as morbidly obscene, regardless the message that might be sent about the horrible circumstances of their deaths. Sometimes the message just has to find another way. A good photographer should know when that is, and/or should have a good editor to guide him in these things. It's too easy to get enamored of ones own work to the point of blinding oneself to the impact this will have in the real world.

I think it's also interesting that if you go back and look, there have been a total of two comments that were threatening in any way. One of those from a Marine in the unit of the victim so 'artfully' portrayed on this blog. One can understand his rage, even if you think it should be restrained.

The rest of the comments have certainly called into question Zoriah's character, and made unflattering remarks, but have been remarkably civil. I mean, what kind of reaction did Zoriah think posting that photo would get? I'm really curious to hear that answer. I suspect it wasn't given too much thought.

[douglas]

To be fair, I went back through all the other comment strings (Seven total), and there was one, maybe two other comments that could be considered threatening in some way. Still, they were pretty oblique, and it's a pretty small ratio.

I do find it ironic to make a plea based on sensitivity to the subject when the lack of is what started all this in the first place.

[mark Aleshnick]

Nilk, nilk. nilk, how uou can pretend to be knowledgable about matters thousands of miles from where you are secloistered. Including contracters, dependents, and support personel, there are far in excess than my conservative 50,000 claimed - they ALL support the war machine in one way or another.

You DO know that there are more contractors aka mercenaries in Iraq than actual military troops, con't you. No, you probably don't. You prefer to play your little games of deceit, deversion, and deception to support your delusional Alice in Wonderland fantasies. I think your development really DID stop when you were eight.

When you finally stop pontificating on matters that you know nothing about, you will be doing the world a tremendous favor.

The anger you speak of is a symptom is yours, not mine and truly a manifestation of your own self-hate, as you know you make statements that have no relation to reality and only relate to the narrow little delusions you use to support your pitiful existance.

[Andrew Garcia]

I am not sure what is up with your critics. you are documenting a war!

Keep up the good work!

Andrew
Simi Valley, CA

[mark Aleshnick]

Thank you Andrew for your words of wisdom

[nilk]

Mark, I think you meant that for Douglas. I had no idea of how many personnel are at Okinawa.

As for games of deceit, deception and diversion (love the alliteration, btw), I prefer to ask people in the know. There are plenty of milblogs around, and I've also found that if you email someone and ask courteously, you can get a response there, too.

[mark Aleshnick]

Sorry, nilk - Despite any differences of opinions we may have, I humbly request your forgiveness.

I, also, apologize for the general vituperativeness of my response. I have seen far too many innocents sacrificed needlessly to just calmly accept these atrocities.

In the words of Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired: "War is (just) a Racket," and I am quite tired of seeing my brothers and sisters used as cannon fodder:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[nilk]

Given gladly, Mark.

War may be "just a racket," but unfortunately there are those in the world who are more than happy to wage it at our expense.

What do you do when dialogue fails?

What do you do with people who take pleasure in seeing photographs of our wounded and fallen people, damaged warships and buildings?

How do you deal with someone who just doesn't care about you and wants to destroy you?

This is what the battles in the ME are ultimately about.

I'm sure you'll disagree (vehemently, no doubt, but that's okay).

I used to lean to your side of the argument, but too many years reading islamic sites, the quran and fora for muslims in the US, Australia, and other places has shown me that I just may have been mistaken.

There are reams of reports you can read on your screen whenever you choose documenting the failings of our society and the lack of will in (some)people and politicians to support it regardless.

Those Marines who Zoriah disrespected in something so basic as shot composition are among the relative few who are willing to fight to the death for your freedom to disagree with them.

They will stand back and accept the abuse verbal and physical hurled at them, and not react in like kind, because they have learned to behave differently.

I would say with honour rather than mere restraint, because with all they see and experience, they can still hold fast in their ideals and their respect for your constitution and rights.

They deserve so much more than being seen as a few dead "soldiers" on a blog.

That is why people see the photos as war porn.

/apologies for the rant, and you'd probably find we've a lot more in common than you realise. We just approach from a different direction.

[mark Aleshnick]

Dear nilk,

I thank you for your kind and gentlemanly acceptance of my apology.

I respectfully disagree with much of what you've said - I've lived in Moslem countries and find that the levels of disinformation propagated are truly beyond belief. Here's one very representative example

Ahmadinejad NEVER voiced ANY intent to wipe israel off the map. It is xenophobic america which chooses not to learn languages of others, and therefore, interprets words to their propagandistic advantage. Here is what was actually said:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

As for whether Zoriah acted within his rights, and as to whether he violated ANY of his obligations, or as you accuse him of disrespecting marines, the truth for anyone wishing to actually know the truth is right here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/14/embedded_photojournalist_accuses_us_military_of

[douglas]

"Nilk, nilk. nilk, how uou can pretend to be knowledgable (sic) about matters thousands of miles from where you are secloistered (sic). Including contracters (sic), dependents, and support personel (sic), there are far in excess than my conservative 50,000 claimed - they ALL support the war machine in one way or another."

Indeed, it was meant for me.
Mark, you are the one who brought up the issue of the number of personnel in Okinawa:

"Further, in contrast to you, Douglas ___, my words are closely scrutinized as I live in u.s. militarily occupied Okinawa where I share this island with 50,000 pawns in this misguided ill-conceived genocide conceived by a evil coterie of liars and deceivers who have never served."

I assumed that "pawns" would refer to people in the military, as contractors and civilians could quit at any time- thus not fitting the term "pawns". I actually looked up statistics of military personnel in Oki, and you could do the same, instead you prefer to stick to ad hominems like this:

"You prefer to play your little games of deceit, deversion (sic), and deception to support your delusional Alice in Wonderland fantasies. I think your development really DID stop when you were eight."

So be it. I will not engage you. At least you're being civil with Nilk (now). That's an improvement.

Let's leave it at that and let the reader decide.

[douglas]

Oh, and thanks for the clarification on Ahmadinejad. I feel so much better that he literally said:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about the palestinians, and I don't see it as any better a statement.

[mark Aleshnick]

"This is significant because Okinawa has a population of 1,318,218 people while SOFA status personnel on Okinawa have a total population of roughly 50,000."

http://rokdrop.com/2008/02/19/us-marines-on-okinawa-face-scrutiny-over-recent-crimes/

Pawn: 2. someone who is used or manipulated to further another person's purposes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pawn

[mark Aleshnick]

I would have been surprised had you BEEN ABLE to grasp the difference in what Ahmadinejad said and how the mainstream media chose to interpret it.

There is a world of difference between genocidally wiping out an entire peoples and regime change, which is what was actually said.

But wait, regime change is the exclusive province of the u.s., isn't it, doug?

[Don Jones]

I, unlike many of the posters that are filled with anger and hate, have been to Iraq. I have been to al Karmah where this attack took place, and in fact lived in the IP Station (across the street from the "blue painted girls school") when I was first embeded. If readers, observers and posters can NOT accept the fact that WAR does have casualties and they can and will be Americans, then they should avoid the news, blogs, casualty reports on the web.

Showing and reporting on deaths in a combat zone does NOT make anyone less patriotic (I'm a Marine Combat veteran and have reported from Iraq...so challenge that!)! Banning photos of the dead from returning to Dover AFB and banning media coverage (EVEN WHEN REQUESTED BY THE FAMILIES OF THOSE KIA!!) is a way to make the WAR only affect those friends and families of the 170,000 armed forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. My SON and his wife are in Iraq on their third tour...so NO ONE needs to try and preach to me about sacrifice, commitment and honor. Both of my KIDS have done it and are doing it NOW!

Zoriah DID THE RIGHT THING. He waited four days to send photos to a "blind site" (his PERSONAL not for public dissemination site). OUR military has a unit IN the Green Zone that does NOTHING but monitor journalist in Iraq. IF you do anything THEY deem (in spite of very specific (and haters SHOULD VIEW THOSE RULES BEFORE POSTING)) to be IN VIOLATION, then you are DQ'D! This rule is used in a way that is inconsistent with the actual RULES as written by the DOD. They are used to send reporters home that want and try to report about the reality of what is going on in Iraq. I'm not talking about "grip and grins" moments...I am talking about what is going on at the FOB's and COP's and Firm Bases...where Soldiers and Marines STILL fight, patrol and exist in a way that ALL of America is NOT aware of! There are TOO MANY Sons and Daughters in Iraq that are on BASES that have never ever been "outside the wire" that call and write home about the "dangers and perils they face". Well guess what...THEY ARE SAFE...They eat T-bones and lobster every Sunday...they have gyms, PX's, showers and air conditioning...unlike many of he "03's and 11 Bravo's" that are the bleeding tip of the spear in Iraq. If you loved one, son or daughter is NOT in a combat MOS then perhaps you should rethink your rants and complaints about HOW THEY ARE SUFFERING and what THEY think! THEY ARE POAGS! They DO NOT RISK! That's not to say that their service is NOT NECESSARY...but when THE PRESS walks into their air conditioned messhall where they are watching a big screen TV and eating hot prepared food...THEY ARE NOT representative of the SOLDIERS AND MARINES that ARE fighting the fight!

People complain about REPORTING in Iraq, but they DO NOT object to those same reporters being kept from reporting BAD things! YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Good news goes hand in hand with BAD NEWS! So when you RESTRICT THE PRESS (by embedding them...so they WON'T DIE REPORTING) the how can you complain when they do NOT report things that matter. I actually remember the prior BUSH administration maligning the Iraqi MINDERS and the North Korean MINDERS that escorted the media...so NOW the same thing is (and has been since 2003) going on with the AMERICAN (Western) Press and people are shocked and surprised!!?? Really!

I am a journalist. I can and will continue to report the truth as I personally observe it where ever I am. I CAN NOT be every where, so if "I" don't see it..."I" will NOT report it....BUT...IF "I" see it and observe it..then DO NOT try and restrict my reporting...because "I" will be telling ALL Americans WHAT I SAW!!! Anything less is censorship and allowing ALL Americans to THINK and FEEL that "things are different" than reality. "I" WILL NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN...no matter how nasty, dirty and unflattering the consequences of my reporting!

[mark Aleshnick]

Thank you, Don for a GREAT GREAT post. You are a true hero and patriot.

[nilk]

Just for the record, I've not forgotten this discussion. At the moment, however, the Decline and Fall of Western Civilisation is taking back seat to the more important issue of organising my daughter's 6th birthday party with Fairy Twinkletoes tomorrow.

Back to the fray shortly, although I will say to Don, there's no issue per se with reporting.

It's how it's done, and the death of our men and women can be shown in ways that are not so graphic.

Even us armchair warriors are not so stupid as to ignore that, but when the MSM has a tendency to show everything from the other side (see the AP's latest abomination with their stringer embedded with the Taliban, for example).

We are having successes over there, and more than the general populace realises.

So why on earth can't you reporter types focus on that rather than parading your prejudices in your stories?

And here I thought the msm were supposed to be impartial.

I was wrong.

[mark Aleshnick]

"Even us armchair warriors are not so stupid as to ignore that, but when the MSM has a tendency to show everything from the other side (see the AP's latest abomination with their stringer embedded with the Taliban, for example)."

Just blame it on the false perception that the media which is owned SOLELY by big corporations is left-leaning. nilk - Yeah, right, that makes a lot of sense.

Or you could just echo el rushbo and blame it on the "drive-by" media, whatever that is supposed to mean.

The "moral majority" was NEVER moral, nor the majority, and that still stands.

""Nattering nabobs of negativism," said Spiro T. shortly before he was lead into a courtroom to face charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy.

Not that much has really changed within the g.o.p. since then.

[douglas]

"If readers, observers and posters can NOT accept the fact that WAR does have casualties and they can and will be Americans, then they should avoid the news, blogs, casualty reports on the web."

Who here said that? No one. So far, all anyone is asking is that our dead and their families be respected. Too much to ask?

"Showing and reporting on deaths in a combat zone does NOT make anyone less patriotic (I'm a Marine Combat veteran and have reported from Iraq...so challenge that!)!"

Of course not, at least not in and of itself. And no one is challenging that. Any more than I would challenge Michael Yon's credentials, or Bill Roggio, for instance. I wonder what you think of them?

"There are TOO MANY Sons and Daughters in Iraq that are on BASES that have never ever been "outside the wire" that call and write home about the "dangers and perils they face". Well guess what...THEY ARE SAFE..."

What does this have to do with anything being discussed here? Nothing.

"People complain about REPORTING in Iraq, but they DO NOT object to those same reporters being kept from reporting BAD things!"

Don, with all due respect, do you know what we are discussing here? It's not about reporting bad news when it happens, no one here has complained about that at all, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can say that I think the news- all of it- should be reported. HOW it is reported, in terms of sensitivities to those who are directly affected should be taken into account. And before you throw the absolute moral authority card at me, there has already been a comment here from a Marine in the unit directly affected by Zoriah's decision to publish the photo in question, who has fought and watched his brothers in arms die at the bloody tip of the spear, who was more than a little disturbed that Zoriah chose to publish THAT ONE PHOTO. I figure his opinion should be given at least as much consideration as yours.

"Zoriah DID THE RIGHT THING. He waited four days to send photos to a "blind site" (his PERSONAL not for public dissemination site)."

If so, that would rather undermine the assertion that he needed to publish it to shock people into acting against the war. From his earlier post:
"I truly labored with the decision to post these images and I still do. But in my heart of hearts I know that people need to see and feel the reality of this horrible situation. How can things change if all that comes out of Iraq are sanitized, white-washed images of war designed for mainstream media outlets who focus on making money, not on the quality and truth in what they report?"
Also, what would the purpose be of sending it to a 'personal' site? If it's no longer about relating what the war is really about to those who are unaware, then I guess that leaves it to be anti-war porn. That's pretty pathetic. The rest is simply justification, rationalizing.

"I actually remember the prior BUSH administration maligning the Iraqi MINDERS and the North Korean MINDERS that escorted the media...so NOW the same thing is (and has been since 2003) going on with the AMERICAN (Western) Press and people are shocked and surprised!!?? Really!"

Perhaps overreaching a bit? In North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq, Zoriah wouldn't have been allowed to leave with that image on his camera, if they didn't want him to. He has not been censored, he was able to post it, as is his right. It is also the right of others to question his decision to exercise that right in that fashion.

"BUT...IF "I" see it and observe it..then DO NOT try and restrict my reporting...because "I" will be telling ALL Americans WHAT I SAW!!! Anything less is censorship..."

Again, they did not censor him at all. The photo was published. They chose to dis-embed him, as is their prerogative. I see he's been re-embedded, looks like it might be with the 1st Battalion, 6th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. Hard to call that censoring him.

"no matter how nasty, dirty and unflattering the consequences of my reporting!"

You might want to give some thought to the potential ethical ramifications of that statement.

[douglas]

Mark, really. The stats you gave from the blog you linked (a good one I might add), are from 2001.

This was also in the blog post:
"There are over 14,000 Marines stationed on Okinawa and over 33,000 US military personnel total in Japan. In addition to this number there are 52,000 dependents and 5,500 contractors stationed in Japan as well. "

Just to verify, I went to the US Forces Japan official website:
"U.S. military strength in Japan is about 42,000 ashore and 14,000 afloat."
That's total for Japan. So perhaps my previous statement that there were around 40,000 might not have included those afloat (if you want to count them).

SO at best, that would be 56,000 'pawns' in all Japan. And they're not all in Okinawa. Sorry.

But what was the point again?

[Don Jones]

Douglas...please allow me to reply to your specific retorts;

"If readers, observers and posters can NOT accept the fact that WAR does have casualties and they can and will be Americans, then they should avoid the news, blogs, casualty reports on the web."

Who here said that? No one. So far, all anyone is asking is that our dead and their families be respected. Too much to ask?

Not too much at all. But when there is a political component to NOT showing the dead then I think that it needs to be addressed, head on. There are a lot of General grade Officers at the Pentagon that hate the Press and have since Viet Nam. So they figured out how to control them during the invasion of Granada, and continue to do so today.
No reporter (Western) can successfully report the good and bad things going on in Iraq without the assistance and authority of the US military. They CAN and DO dictate where you can report from and what you can say. But I digress. Showing the dead, when they clearly can not be identified, is done everyday in America. But strangely I don't see or hear ANY objection from anyone about showing dead Iraqis killed in a suicide attack. How can we ask for something that we are not prepared to do for other human beings?

"Showing and reporting on deaths in a combat zone does NOT make anyone less patriotic (I'm a Marine Combat veteran and have reported from Iraq...so challenge that!)!"

Of course not, at least not in and of itself. And no one is challenging that. Any more than I would challenge Michael Yon's credentials, or Bill Roggio, for instance. I wonder what you think of them?

Michael Yon and I have talked on several occassions, his private cell phone number is on my phone. He does great work. BTW (in reference to the above)...I don't see you objecting to his photo of a dead Iraqi child on his web site and adorning the cover of his book. If you read his blog you might be surprised that he is characterizing our efforts in Afghanistan as LOOSING.. That's a lot different than his post from just last year from there.

"There are TOO MANY Sons and Daughters in Iraq that are on BASES that have never ever been "outside the wire" that call and write home about the "dangers and perils they face". Well guess what...THEY ARE SAFE..."

What does this have to do with anything being discussed here? Nothing.

Certainly it does. The chorus of "my Son or Daughter" are serving shapes the perception by conservatives that "all the troops are about the mission". Those are the people that are interviewed during the "dog and pony" shows for visiting dignitaries. They talk to "those guys" who are totally clueless. They here what an outrage "posting those photos" was from people who are just happy NOT to have to ever face that danger during their tours.

"People complain about REPORTING in Iraq, but they DO NOT object to those same reporters being kept from reporting BAD things!"

Don, with all due respect, do you know what we are discussing here? It's not about reporting bad news when it happens, no one here has complained about that at all, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can say that I think the news- all of it- should be reported. HOW it is reported, in terms of sensitivities to those who are directly affected should be taken into account. And before you throw the absolute moral authority card at me, there has already been a comment here from a Marine in the unit directly affected by Zoriah's decision to publish the photo in question, who has fought and watched his brothers in arms die at the bloody tip of the spear, who was more than a little disturbed that Zoriah chose to publish THAT ONE PHOTO. I figure his opinion should be given at least as much consideration as yours.

The opinion of ALL Marines about their Brothers, especially those that have been killed is a very emotional one. I have met and talked with a lot of Marines that fought in the Push in Fallujah in 2004. NOW, in retrospect, they are delighted that the reporters and photographers DID report what they saw AND, more relevant to this thread, publish THOSE pictures. I have a friend who was a "combat camera". His photos from the fighting in Fallujah showed several Marines being hit (with two KIA) and no one dogged him about his work. AND he identified the people getting shot. Why should there be a different criteria between an embed and a combat camera? I have been threatened and confronted by soldiers and Marines for taking photos...but after the fact they have, to the man, come to me and apologised and said that they knew I was just doing my job. What you don't understand is that often there is a relationship between the photographer and the people that they serve with. I took the same risk that they did and that camaraderie and mutual respect goes a long way. I don't know the personal relationship of the Marine that posted, but I'd be willing to bet it was someone from the PAO Office in Camp Fallujah or someone from 2/3. Either way NO ONE likes to have to cover the deaths of their friends. Ask the PAO people from Camp Fallujah about covering the death of Maj Megan McClung. She was a friend and I couldn't have been successful without her help. But had I been there when she was killed I would have done my job first and felt the same shitty feelings I feel today, later.

"Zoriah DID THE RIGHT THING. He waited four days to send photos to a "blind site" (his PERSONAL not for public dissemination site)."

If so, that would rather undermine the assertion that he needed to publish it to shock people into acting against the war. From his earlier post:
"I truly labored with the decision to post these images and I still do. But in my heart of hearts I know that people need to see and feel the reality of this horrible situation. How can things change if all that comes out of Iraq are sanitized, white-washed images of war designed for mainstream media outlets who focus on making money, not on the quality and truth in what they report?"
Also, what would the purpose be of sending it to a 'personal' site? If it's no longer about relating what the war is really about to those who are unaware, then I guess that leaves it to be anti-war porn. That's pretty pathetic. The rest is simply justification, rationalizing.

He was DQ'd because they could DQ him. They want to ban him FOR LIFE from doing anything with the DOD. Do you Larry Burrows' "Yankee Papa 13" photos from Viet Nam should have gotten him thrown out? They were horrific! But guess what...the military just let him keep on working. And he was on board a military helicopter when he was killed over Laos in 1971. They didn't kick him out, ban him for life or restrict his reporting.

"I actually remember the prior BUSH administration maligning the Iraqi MINDERS and the North Korean MINDERS that escorted the media...so NOW the same thing is (and has been since 2003) going on with the AMERICAN (Western) Press and people are shocked and surprised!!?? Really!"

Perhaps overreaching a bit? In North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq, Zoriah wouldn't have been allowed to leave with that image on his camera, if they didn't want him to. He has not been censored, he was able to post it, as is his right. It is also the right of others to question his decision to exercise that right in that fashion.

It is NOT about the images you have..but access to the areas to capture the images. If the war is going badly in Ramadi and you don't let reporters go to Ramadi...then the war is going great, because you can't see the bad parts of the war. Access is everything. reporters and photographers CAN report with or without "images". But when you can't even GO to where you need to be to report...then it's is concealing the truth. And by the way...DQing him and throwing him out of Iraq IS censorship. And the fact that he is being threatened with a "lifetime" ban is "chilling" to the rest of the Media.

"BUT...IF "I" see it and observe it..then DO NOT try and restrict my reporting...because "I" will be telling ALL Americans WHAT I SAW!!! Anything less is censorship..."

Again, they did not censor him at all. The photo was published. They chose to dis-embed him, as is their prerogative. I see he's been re-embedded, looks like it might be with the 1st Battalion, 6th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. Hard to call that censoring him.

He's home now, I just talked to him on the phone. That isn't embeded..that's just home (not having to crap in a wag bag, eat MRE's and wait to get shot by a sniper or blown up...which is what we all live for). A KEY element to "censorship" is the ability to PREVENT it's publication. If that is NOT possible then the thing that is done next is to get rid of the pesky reporter/photographer. And that happens all the time. While I was waiting for my embed in "The Pit" in the Green Zone...a photographer was being sent home because he took a photo of a dead insurgent (after living through a five hour gun fight in Sadr City). In the insurgents hand was a cell phone. It turned out to be a detonator...unbeknowst to the photographer. The Military tracked his transmission to his "blind site", where he'd moved his images because he couldn't store them all locally, and viewd (by hacking) the images. He was instantly DQ'd and sent home. No discussion, no appeal, no coversation...bye bye, see ya! In 24 hours. He didn't even know what he had done. The CPIC told him that his photos had enough detail for "other insurgents" to be able to build similar detonators based on his photos (which were probably never going to see the light of day anyway). THAT is censorship.

"no matter how nasty, dirty and unflattering the consequences of my reporting!"

You might want to give some thought to the potential ethical ramifications of that statement.

The second I start thinking about and self censoring, then I don't deserve to be a journalist. What if "I" don't report something that YOU find important because "I" didn't think it was appropriate or relevant? That makes me NOT a reporter. It makes me a shill with a political agenda. My job is to report, to tell, to show that world (anyone that cares enough to look and read) what I saw, experienced and witnessed. My conscious is clear. I stand by every photo I've ever taken and story I've ever written. And no one has ever (after the fact) complained or been angry. In fact, just the opposite. People thank me for telling them and showing them things that they didn't understand or would never see with their own eyes. I'm cool with that.

[Don Jones]

To Martyn

I understand your your anger and frustration Brother...but would NOT publishing or takiing these photo's bring back the Bn CO, Company Co or Cpl. Preudhomme. NO it wouldn't.

Yes!!! You and and the rest of Echo lost three Brothers and that's a shitty thing. But does publishing a photo make it worse? Will they come back to life if the photo was never posted? Does the photo diminish their accomplishments in life? I think not. YOU know what they look like and can identify them because you saw them every day. But what about the rest of the Nation? Do you get to be the Gate Keeper for ALL things seen and released to the public?

Let's be honest, tell us, how many photos of dead "MUJ" do you and members of Echo (especially returning veterans, which many of you are) have on laptops and DVD's. How many photos of victims of SVBIED's have YOU seen posted on the internet by Marines and soldiers? YOU don't have one problem with posting those to the Net or laughing about the ones that are there, but you get your ass up now because it's someone you guys know. Really!? Ten Marines that I was around on my embed were KIA including everyone from my first "ride" except the driver. I keep their names on my wrist everyday...but for you to twist of on someone for doing his job is wrong. I understand your anger, and, in the short term, would act just the way you are (although I'd try to avoid an Article 15 by not threatening a civilian with physical harm in a public blog).

Don't blame Zoriah. He didn't sit through a meeting and then blow himself up in the IP Station courtyard. The Muj did. Who's to blame for THAT massive failure of Operational Security?? Should anyone blame the S-2 guys, the Co both Battalion and Company?? NO! It's just a "shit happens" world Brother and you can't continue to blame the messenger.

[douglas]

Don,

"But when there is a political component to NOT showing the dead then I think that it needs to be addressed, head on. "

But it's only one component out of many. And the deaths we've suffered in this war have been reported on quite a lot, perhaps even, at times, been the focus of the discussion, despite their historically low numbers (I realize that ignores the personal aspect- but that's a different issue: there's news, and there's human interest stories). What exactly needs addressing in this regard, and why are photos so vital to that interest?

"Showing the dead, when they clearly can not be identified, is done everyday in America."

I beg to differ. At most, you'll see a white-sheet shot, unless you watch some of the Spanish language channels- they use a more Latin American standard, and show more (which I am not in favor of).

"But strangely I don't see or hear ANY objection from anyone about showing dead Iraqis killed in a suicide attack. How can we ask for something that we are not prepared to do for other human beings?"

I've not seen it here, but I have in other blog comment strings (For instance, Zoriah:Claification &Definition of Embeds, comment by Cassandra 11 July 11:57am "NO. Iraq, insurgent, Marine, soldier, I don't care. Wrong is wrong."). I'm not real keen on showing innocent Iraqi victims of suicide bombings either. To be honest, I am not so much against showing gun camera footage of insurgents/terrorists getting hit. It's abstract enough, yet relays what's really going on fairly well. It does get close to the line, though. But I have little respect for those who would fight outside the conventions on warfare, and deliberately target innocents. That stands in great opposition to the respect I have for the average Iraqi, and particularly for those of my countrymen who are sacrificing so much on my behalf. That's why I'm spending so much time here talking about this.

"I don't see you objecting to his photo of a dead Iraqi child on his web site and adorning the cover of his book."

No, because the photo does not identify or in fact even show the child beyond some hair and the feet. It shows her being carried in a blanket- she's in there, but you can't see her face. Does that matter? Yes. Another crucial difference is that the photo of the Marine can bring nothing positive to the family and friends who will be able to identify him, but that photo of Farah, at least tells those who loved her that someone cared about her in her final moments, that she wasn't just treated like a piece of meat. I actually brought up that photo earlier (I think it was here) as an example of powerful photojournalism that shows the costs of war without going over the line. Also, Yon has vigorously protected the use of that photo for very limited purposes, and I'm sure (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree) that if Farah's family came to him and asked him not to use it, he wouldn't. Zoriah could learn from Yon, it seems.

"If you read his blog you might be surprised that he is characterizing our efforts in Afghanistan as LOOSING(sic).. That's a lot different than his post from just last year from there."

I'm not surprised at all that he has referred to us as losing in Afghanistan, just as he's always been a straight shooter about the situation in Iraq. He was calling it 'civil war' over there before it was 'cool' (though I still disagree with the use of the term). What's important about Yon is that he tells the truth- the WHOLE truth, and I'm ALL for that.

"...They here what an outrage "posting those photos" was from people who are just happy NOT to have to ever face that danger during their tours."

Honestly, I don't get your whole line on this. There's already been one comment here from a Marine in the unit that was hit in the controversial photo who clearly expressed his displeasure at the posting, and indicated he was not alone. I don't know his political stance, but what are you saying? That most of troops are against the war? That Marine grunts and Army 11b's are all FOR that photo getting published? Maybe you could clarify.

" they are delighted that the reporters and photographers DID report what they saw AND, more relevant to this thread, publish THOSE pictures."

Well, you got the emphasis right- THOSE. I'd have to see them to comment. What about THIS photo that we're talking about here?

"Why should there be a different criteria between an embed and a combat camera?"

Why, editorial control, of course. The Marines may find those images valuable for historical reasons, but publishing them four days later might not be a good idea.

"What you don't understand is that often there is a relationship between the photographer and the people that they serve with. I took the same risk that they did and that camaraderie and mutual respect goes a long way."

Oh, I understand. I'm also willing to guess that Zoriah wasn't as 'in' as you were (expecially being a Marine combat vet). I mean, Zoriah doesn't even know to call a Marine a Marine and not a soldier. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

"I don't know the personal relationship of the Marine that posted, but I'd be willing to bet it was someone from the PAO Office in Camp Fallujah or someone from 2/3. Either way NO ONE likes to have to cover the deaths of their friends."

Well, I've already stated that I doubt Zoriah was friends with all the Marines in the unit. I'm pretty sure he wasn't friends with the Marine in the picture. The comment I'm referring to certainly wasn't a PAO, but I can't find the comment anymore.

"Ask the PAO people from Camp Fallujah about covering the death of Maj Megan McClung. She was a friend and I couldn't have been successful without her help. But had I been there when she was killed I would have done my job first and felt the same shitty feelings I feel today, later."

So you would have posted a picture of her mangled body four days after her death? We're not talking about covering a death, we're talking specifically about a particular photograph. I would like to know if you'd publish that photo. I would not. Most journalists would not. I mean, why is it we almost never see photos of journalists who are killed in war coverage?

"Do you Larry Burrows' "Yankee Papa 13" photos from Viet Nam should have gotten him thrown out? They were horrific! But guess what...the military just let him keep on working."

Well, from what I could find of that series of photos, they were perfectly acceptable coverage of the war. There were photos of wounded aircrew, but no dead, and I did not see them as particularly gruesome. A far cry from the circumstances of the photo being debated here. Even the military specifically allows the coverage of wounded (anonymously), but not of dead soldiers or Marines. Tell me, what can you not convey about the horror of war with pictures of wounded that you can with pictures of the dead?

"It is NOT about the images you have..but access to the areas to capture the images."

But he has access. I've not heard of the U.S. military closing off access to anywhere, except perhaps Fallujah, but there were embeds there. They are not obligated to provide your security. It's a favor. It's not their fault that if you go around without them, you might lose your head.

"Access is everything."

Well, in a general sense, I'll grant you that, though I'm not sure I fully agree. Problem is, it's about general access- not about one specific reporter. And by the way, I can see where one of his posts could be considered Opsec sensitive, and if so, you likely wouldn't hear about that from the Marines, so he might actually be getting kicked out for a rules violation that no one can talk about. I don't know.

"...DQing him and throwing him out of Iraq IS censorship. And the fact that he is being threatened with a "lifetime" ban is "chilling" to the rest of the Media."

Who is throwing him out of Iraq? The U.S. government doesn't have the authority to do so, only the Iraq government could demand that. DQing him isn't censorship- sorry. So long as others, like you for instance, keep their credentials, there is access, and there is no censorship. Misusing the term devalues it- I'd be careful about that.

"a photographer was being sent home because he took a photo of a dead insurgent..."

While I appreciate that it might have been better to talk to him, clearly there was an Opsec issue, and the matter of greater importance was Opsec. Rightly so in a war zone. If that's censorship, then I'm for it, because it just might save your sons life. Are you against any restrictions on journalists embedded? If there are acceptable restrictions, then there is acceptable censorship. If not, then we disagree, and the Supreme Court disagrees with you too.

" The second I start thinking about and self censoring, then I don't deserve to be a journalist."

So editors aren't journalists? C'mon. As for your notion of the pure reporter, in my opinion, there is no such thing. everyone brings an angle, and ideological baggage, and besides, Zoriah isn't even hiding his, he makes no such claim to be neutral. In fact, he makes direct calls to action. Is he not a journalist?

Thanks, Don.

[douglas]

"But does publishing a photo make it worse?"

Apparently, yes. Why is that so hard to understand.

Also, he did not make a threat, he relayed overhearing such a threat being made. Still, I'd recommend against it.

"...you can't continue to blame the messenger."

Why? Do they have some sort of 'carte blanche' where they can do no wrong? Is nothing off limits or beyond decency? I'm sure you don't believe that.

[mark Aleshnick]

Douglas, your incoherent ramblings follow a path that only a mosquito high on crack could follow, so I'm only going to address one of your numerous efforts to disingenuously provide mis-information to this blog:

You say: "Zoriah could learn from Yon, it seems."

But Yon says:

"While our enemies have "journalists" crawling all over battlefields to chronicle their successes and our failures, we have an "embed" media system that is so ineptly managed that earlier this fall there were only 9 reporters embedded with 150,000 American" troops in Iraq.

"By enabling incompetence, the Pentagon has allowed the problem to fester to the point of censorship."

"I feel no shame in saying I hope that Afghanistan and Iraq "succeed," whatever that means. For that very reason, it would be a dereliction to remain silent about our military's ineptitude in handling the press. The subject is worthy of a book, but can't wait that long, lest we grow accustomed to a subtle but all too real censorship of the U.S. war effort."

"No one can complain when Delta Force will not permit an embed. In fact, I have turned down offers to embed with some Special Operations forces because the limitations on what I could write would not be worth the danger and expense. But we can and should complain when authorities willfully limit war reporting. We should do so whether it happens as a matter of policy, or through incompetence or bureaucratic sloth. The result is the same in any case. And once the matter has been brought to the attention of the military and the Pentagon--which I have quietly done--and still the situation is not rectified, it is time for a public accounting."

"The government of the United States has no right to send our people off to war and keep secret that which it has no plausible military reason to keep secret."

"The government has no right to withhold information or to deny access to our combat forces just because that information might anger, frighten, or disturb us."

"This information blockade is occurring at the same time that the Pentagon is outsourcing millions of dollars to public relations firms to shape the news. This half-baked effort has the unintended consequence of putting every reporter who files a positive story under scrutiny as a possible stooge."

"While al Sahab hums along winning battle after propaganda battle, the bungling gatekeepers at the Combined Press Information Center (CPIC) reciprocate with ridiculous and costly obstacles that deter embedded media covering our forces, ultimately causing harm to only one side: ours."

"In September, when the popular blog conglomerate Pajamas Media reported that there were only nine embedded journalists in Iraq, readers lashed out, blaming a cowardly media. But the reality is convoluted. The Pentagon permits an extremely limited number of journalists access, while denying other embed requests that would have been permitted as recently as a year ago."

"Following up on the Pajamas Media report, I con tacted Major Jeffrey Pool, the Marine officer in charge of tracking media in Iraq. He confirmed the figure of only nine embedded reporters. Three were from Stars and Stripes, one from the Armed Forces Network, another from a Polish radio station who was with Polish forces, and one Italian reporter embedded with his country's troops. Of the remaining three, one was an author gathering material for later, leaving two who were reporting on a regular basis to what you might think would be the Pentagon's center of gravity: American citizens."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/844nigml.asp

So it seems that it is NOT Zoriah (who I am certain takes the time to read) who could learn from Yon, but YOU who could and should take the time.

Unfortunately you prefer vapid conjecture and platitudinous essays on your ill thought out suppositions and hypotheticals.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not taking the time to read up on matters you wish to comment on, but I doubt that the word "shame" appears in your dictionary.

[mark Aleshnick]

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana

Again and again and again and again until the whole deck of cards will inevitably and certainly fall!

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=pg1QuYv__wY

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=cdaQy1Bexp0

As you sow so shall you reap!

[douglas]

Well, if I said anywhere that our press coverage was perfect or that the military was running a well oiled machine as regards it's interface with the media, you could hit me with that criticism, but I've not said that. I've said that Zoriah getting dis-embedded isn't censorship, and some censorship is necessary (as Yon alludes to in the bit about Delta and Special Forces in particular).

I totally agree with Yon that the media relations from the Pentagon has been lousy. That changes nothing in this conversation.

So who's rambling and incoherent?

[mark Aleshnick]

Rambling and shuffling, huffing and jiving, dissembling and pontificating. justifying and lying - a bunch of hot steaming lying b.s. trying to justify the the unjustifiable - a little man with a little mind trying to satisfy his empty life with lies and deceptions.

That's you, dougie - trying to drag, Zoriah, a true hero and humanitarian down into the levels of your narrow pitiable life.

Still waiting to hear the weak bleatings you'll have offer to explain 50 military inventions since WWII, the deaths of millions of civilians, and the overthrow of numerous democratically elected governments.

Yes it's you who is rambling incoherently and too self-absorbed to even see it.

A living, walking, talking mass of utterly contemptuous contradictions - that's our dougie-boy

[nilk]

Douglas, your incoherent ramblings follow a path that only a mosquito high on crack could follow,

Well, I guess that makes me a mozzie high on crack.

Mark, Douglas makes perfect sense.

While I can see where you are coming from, I disagree with your point of view.

Please define "decency", and "compassion," for example.

With the picture Zoriah posted, he is lending himself more to the "if it bleeds it leads" school of journalism rather than educating the wider reading public about what is happening in the war zone.

I don't know the bloke from a bar of soap, nor anyone else here, actually.

You bring up again US military interventions over the last however many years, but I would like to ask you few simple questions:

Do you love your country?

Do you believe that the enemies of your country have a right to access all the information provided by the free press that you have?

Is your country so strong that nothing will ever hurt her, so whatever you think or feel or do is okay, because as we say here, she'll be right, mate?

[mark Aleshnick]

Nilk: "Do you love your country?

Do you believe that the enemies of your country have a right to access all the information provided by the free press that you have?"

I love what the writers' of the constitution intended If you think america has a free press, you are as hopelessly deluded as douglas and probably believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus.

[nilk]

Mark, my questions are basic, simple questions.

A simple yes or no is what I can cope with at this time of the day.

[Don Jones]

So the way to mitigate images, thoughts and feelings is to just say these magic words; "With the picture Zoriah posted, he is lending himself more to the "if it bleeds it leads" school of journalism rather than educating the wider reading public about what is happening in the war zone"?

How can and would YOU educate the American people about the deaths of Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan? Tell them anecdotal stories about the "great Americans" that were killed in a war that had been opposed for four years? Let's NOT get bogged down in the POLITICS...lst's just talk straight...WHO wants to be the LAST GUY/GIRL KIA in Afghanistan or Iraq? Do you actually think that THEIR families will agree with these vapid and nebulous reasons that THEIR families Son/Daughter was killed (and BTW...NOT YOUR family member!!)?

Theory, intellectual discourse and political posturing are all good and fine...util it is ONE OF YOUR OWN that has been killed in combat. The SAD REALITY is...is that CONGRESS has little if any (less the FEW true patriots whose Sons and Daughters are at risk) PERSONAL interest in WAR. Their KIN are FAR from harms war.

I recommend that ALL members of Congress sign a pledge that if there is a WAR in te future that THEIR Sons and Daughters WILL BE THE FIRST to train and face combat! I believe that the consequence of that would be...NOT ANOTHER WAR IN THE NEAR FUTURE (until they figure out a way to "game" the system...aka G Bush).

[douglas]

Don, I thought you better than that.

"WHO wants to be the LAST GUY/GIRL KIA in Afghanistan or Iraq?"

So when are your son and daughter-in-law going to take a dishonorable and quit?

Here's a link to an 'organization' that can assist them:
http://www.smartsoldier.com/info/gettingout.php?gclid=CPehvd-b3ZQCFSQdagodiy1CSw

If they aren't getting out of what you clearly feel is a mistake, why aren't they? I don't understand.

"How can and would YOU educate the American people about the deaths of Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan? Tell them anecdotal stories about the "great Americans" that were killed in a war that had been opposed for four years?"

Well, you could reduce them to headlines and numbers as the MSM has done for years. And are you saying that those killed are obviously not "great Americans"? What then are they?

By the way, as for sons and daughters of congress being 'required' to serve, it's about the most fascistic idea I've heard in a while. Your children are not yours to volunteer. They (as adults) make their own decisions, as it should be.

Ironically, most of the children of members of Congress serving I've heard of are children of supporters of the war (in other words, Republicans), including Senator McCain, so at least he's immune to that criticism.

Oh, and Mark, if you have an actual argument to make, I'd be happy to address it, but if all you have is name calling and non-sequitur, then I'll have to pass.

[douglas]

Joe Wilson R-SC
Kit Bond R-MO
Todd Akin R-MO
Tim Johnson D-SD (Voted for the war)
Duncan Hunter R-CA

All have or had children deployed.

Lindsey Graham R-SC is an Air Force Reserve Col. and has actually done two of his annual two week reserve obligations in Iraq.

That's what I could pull up in five minutes. More time I haven't got, sorry.

[mark Aleshnick]

Don Jones has real and meaningful things to say, and I thank him for them.

You and your cohort, nilk, offer little more than conjecture and half truths.

I am glad you have decided to pass, and hope nilk does, also.

[mark Aleshnick]

Censorship in the age of the new american "democracy":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?ex=1374811200&en=9903da4b22e064a4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[JohnBintelligent]

In response to "innocent bystander" of July 7.
This is WHY Zoriah was embedded. You lot sound like Soviet-era Soviet propagandists. If there are no photographs of the dead ipso facto there are NO dead. You're all dreamin' back there in Middle America as you lower another flag-draped coffin into the ground. Be reassured, it's all a figment of your imagination. There are no dead apart from a one-liner on the casualties today in Afghanistan, Iraq and.... coming soon Iran?
The US Marine corps does not want YOU to know what hell and carnage they are putting your sons through because you might protest!
Thank God for Barack.Some sense coming soon!

[mark Aleshnick]

Thanks for some truth here, for a change, Johnbin!

[TexRex96]

Isn't it obvious that this work is vital to our contextual understanding of the war? The careful way it's presented on this site -- you have to be looking for it -- makes clear that ample consideration has been given to those who might be offended. I've seen the death of broadcast journalism over the past ten years or so, and it's nice to see that photojournalism might still have a chance.

There is a lot of vitriol on this board, but a common thread in the "love it or leave it" anti-Miller posts is a curious loathing of the 1st amendment, and a desperate confidence in our government -- the kind so deftly exploited by the current Administration to wreak havoc on the country's foundations, finances, and image abroad.

Images resonate. Given the profound controversy surrounding both these wars, it's a no-brainer to me that more, not less, news and documentation are needed if not for all of us, then for future generations.

[barry in NewYork]

Ever heard of MICHAEL YON?

Check out his approach to combat photography. This is how you show the truth and not have Marines wanting to kill you because they feel betrayed.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

I think we all understand that technically he didn't violate the contract with the Marines.

To me that is rather beside the point, the world doesn't always function so cut and dried. He violated a trust among warriors, anyway bad decision.

It is revealing that they did not simply take away his memory card, it shows Marines value integrity.

Look I know it had to be a tough call to post or not.

Mr Miller should have sat on the shots a bit longer, 10 years or so.

If Mr Miller had waited he could still be in Iraq revealing the truth, now he will miss out on Afghanistan II as well.

I think people know war sucks and there is no shortage of dead people online for folks to see, frankly the shots were just not iconic enough to justify publication, it just did not add enough to the conversation to justify torching his relationship with the Marines.

We all know what Marines do. They Fight, Kill and Die.

For the next generation:

If you are an aspiring photojournalist look through Mr Millers site but visit Yon as well:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

[douglas]

"Isn't it obvious that this work is vital to our contextual understanding of the war?"

Well, no. It's a photograph. It gives you a small amount of information, and frankly, even less 'context'.

If you want to understand the rigors and horrors of combat, read what those who have been there have to say. It would be far more instructive, and give one a far deeper understanding of what war is all about, than one, or even a whole series of photographs. There's a reason that newspapers run one or two photos but a whole column of text in the accompanying story. Even Zoriah runs a little text here in his blog along with his photos.

If you're getting your info from photos, I think you might want to try to expand your information base a little.

[Jim Avila, Maj USMC (Ret)]

What you lack Mr. Miller, is intellectual honesty regarding your true motives. Without that, you are nothing more than a lot of noise, soon to be diminished by the passing of time.

[mark Aleshnick]

"Mr Miller should have sat on the shots a bit longer, 10 years or so.

If Mr Miller had waited he could still be in Iraq revealing the truth, now he will miss out on Afghanistan II as well."

Congrats for lunacy, hyperbole and illogical "reasoning" above and beyond the call of duty.

Also, before posting such inanity, it might have been a good idea to read the words of Yon, posted prior to your self-serving venomous pablum

[mark Aleshnick]

Douglas neglects to mention that he ONLY reads that which supports his convoluted conception of reality. I'm sure he has yet to visit the site I suggested:

www.ivaw.org/

containing direct testimony of currently serving and veterans of these wars; testimony offered to be presented before Congress and under oath.

And to you, Maj jim USMC (ret); thank goodness you are already "diminished by the passing of time."

Have a cigar, a can of Bud, and watch a good war flick - you deserve it!

[mike]

You write this under one of your photos:

Other men show off broken fingers and burn marks which they say they received during interrogations by U.S. troops and bullet wounds from U.S. rifle fire

How in the hell do you know the stories you are being told are true? You then post them here as if the comments are FACT. How did you corroborate your facts before you published this, other Iraqis? I find your claims preposterous and irresponsible and you needed to be ejected for your own protection. I am sure the usual limp wristed outlets love your negative slant.

[douglas]

Mr. Aleshnick, I've been by IVAW before, and read about their 'Winter Soldier II' testimonies. The organization is less than impressive, and the WSII hearings produced little if anything of substance. I'm sure, had there been any there, there, some congressman would have worked the media into a frenzy on it. Alas, no dice. Sorry to disappoint you, Mark.

So, do you have anything at all except empty accusations and invective? Logic and reason? Demonstrable facts? Anything beside your feelings of rage? I wouldn't mind engaging you, but you seem only to want a pointless fight. If you've got something of substance to discuss, I'm all ears.

Mike, yeah, I concur- doesn't smell right. Istanbul is a beautiful city with great people, but why these guys are reliable sources is questionable. They might actually be Palestinians. Also, burns from cigarettes are an unfortunately rather popular form of torture... in the middle east. Pretty popular under Saddam's rule. The other photos don't really show much that tells you anything, except the Turkish tradition of no air rights restrictions over the streets, and the corbelling out of the second story to gain extra space.

But I'm sure Mr. Aleshnick will set us straight, after another failed attempt to goad me into a roll in the mud.

[Jeff Wells]

I think you are disgusting for violating your agreement and compromising the ground rules for war coverage. They are there for a good purpose to protect our troops and save the pain of their families. You will cry journalistic priviledge and the "right to know" when in reality you are not a man of your word and you are trying to promote yourself. You might gain a following but you have the total disgust of so many and I am sure that includes our brave soldiers.

[mark Aleshnick]

douglas, have you listened to the ivaw testimony in full?

As your colleague in arms, nilk, would put it; "a simple yes or no" would suffice.

The rest of your post is nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture AGAIN, so there is no need for me to address that.

[douglas]

In full, as in every minute? Of course not, I have a life. Have YOU?

"The rest of your post is nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture AGAIN, so there is no need for me to address that."

True enough, and presented only as my gut feelings, nothing more. At least we agree for once.

[mark Aleshnick]

Part of my life consists of exposing liars, dissemblers, and people who revel in half-truths, like you and nilk.

And, YES, I have heard every minute of the testimony

[mark Aleshnick]

A few selected quotes dedicated to those who only believe the Orwellian sputum they so joyously regurgitate:

It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong.

— VOLTAIRE--

All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

— ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

Major General USMC Smedley D. Butler

The constitutional right of free speech has been declared to be the same in peace and war. In peace, too, men may differ widely as to what loyalty to our country demands, and an intolerant majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has been in the past, to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees.

Justice Louis Brandeis

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.

[douglas]

"All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

— ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Hmmm, so that's why your so full of ridicule and anger. We're at stage 1.5!

[Noor al Haqiqa]

I am not surprised by those who insult your work. However, since this was sold as a war to protect freedom, their reactions are a tad hypocritical. And we all know that whole war was/is based on lies.

Showing people the reality of war is important. It is the only way to shake the apathy out of some. War as shown on tv is ludicrous. A bit of broken glass here, a clean but teary eyed well fed child there. Omitted are the blood and guts and burned out dog chewed babies. Was is hell. But if a people pays for it, they deserve the right to see where their money is being spent. Dollar for dollar.

But military types, generally speaking, and those who serve the Zionist agenda prefer working unseen, in the dark, unhindered by public opinion and anything that might snap them out of the fog they enter when killing is not good. The machine does not want them halted because they say a few pictures.

Also bodies of slain soldiers have been shown and it was only once the war crimes of Vietnam began that it suddenly became politically incorrect to show the truth.

Zoriah, keep up the good work. Have a care for yourself, lotsa folks seem to be missing the whole point of what you do. They would rather you returned to America and took a job as a pizza delivery boy.