An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

On Our Fallen Heroes, Returning Home: A Word From Ordinary Citizens

heroes-returning.jpg

As I have mentioned before, I often find that regular people, people like you and I, can look at the issues of our time and come up with more sensible, down-to-earth opinions—and sometimes solutions—than the pundits and the politicians.

That’s why I like to read the “Letters to the Editor” sections of the various newspapers and periodicals.

The issue of lifting the ban on photographs, or of any other public visual record, of our returning heroes when they first touch American soil at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, has been a lot in the news recently, as the Obama administration, along with the Pentagon, weigh lifting the ban.

I posted a couple of opinion pieces here and here, and received quite a few lively responses and commentary, both for and against lifting the ban.

This morning, the New York Times, in “A Visual Record to Honor the Fallen,” published a set of four letters, three by ordinary citizens—including one by the father of a fallen hero*, one by a Navy member—and one by an organization.

And again, as is so often the case, such letters provide not only a good cross-section of American opinion, but—as shown in order below—also very eloquent and poignant rationale in support of, in opposition to, or for compromise on an issue, respectively.

Here they are:

Re “A Record of Sacrifice” (editorial, Feb. 15):

I agree with efforts to lift the ban on photographs of returning fallen servicemen and women. Nothing says more of the sacrifice they and their families have made than that.

Politicians who beat their breasts talking about “the ultimate sacrifice” should be willing to show what that means.

As parents of Lance Cpl. Augie Schroeder, a Marine killed in Iraq in 2005, my wife and I put our son’s life into a video set to music appropriate for what happened. Viewers see a smiling kid, but it ends with his funeral.

This has great effect in showing the public the true costs of war, and it is the public that has to tell politicians to just end what we continue to do in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My son’s sacrifice demands it.

Paul E. Schroeder
Cleveland, Feb. 15, 2009

Re “Coming Home in Public” (Week in Review, Feb. 15):

One’s military service is certainly in the best interest of the public, but the notion that an individual service member’s “return is of public interest,” as you report some critics of the ban on photographs have asserted, is a disingenuous stretch.

Stretched far enough, one could argue that the content of a service member’s dental record is a matter of public interest, as well.

Since much of military life, compared with civilian life, is lived under some type of scrutiny, I hope society would afford all the privacy possible for the members of its armed services.

If skeptics judge the Pentagon’s current policy on photographing the return of fallen military members’ remains an attempt to “manipulate public opinion,” how can any reasonable and rational person not think the desire by the media to gain unfettered access to flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base is not the same?

Shaun S. Brown
Camp Al Taqaddum, Iraq, Feb. 15, 2009
The writer is in the Navy.

Re “A Record of Sacrifice” (editorial, Feb. 15):

You point out that the press should be permitted to cover and photograph the arrival of the remains of American casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan so that the public will be able to appreciate their sacrifices as well as see the reality of the costs of war.

The families of these fallen soldiers should have a lot of input on the decision of whether or not the remains of their loved ones should be publicized in this manner.

But the deaths of these young men and women should not be used to support anyone’s political agenda, whether it favors or opposes the military actions in question.

Michael Gewirtz
New York, Feb. 15, 2009

The fourth letter is by the regional director of the American Friends Service Committee, who is the originator of the Eyes Wide Open exhibit.

As it represents the position of an organization, I have not included it here. But it also offers powerful opinion. To read it, please go here.

* Note: While I include Mr. Schroeder in the category of “ordinary citizens,” I do this with with great respect and with my deep sympathy for his loss.

  • DdW
    Thanks for your comments, GS
  • DdW
    Thanks for your service (and that of your family members) and for your thoughts, Thurmanhart.

    It is a very emotional issue, and I hope our President makes the right decision---one which will be criticized, regardless.
  • greenschemes
    "But the deaths of these young men and women should not be used to support anyone’s political agenda, whether it favors or opposes the military actions in question."

    And I know you thought from the other day I was attacking Democrats with my posts but I too think after having lived thru Viet Nam that all modern wars have become someones political mess. That was my point and my only point. Both sides of the isle use them to further their political agenda and I fear would do so even at the expense of the honor of those returning from the battlefield.
  • I spent six years in the Navy. My father served for over twenty years, including three tours off the coast of Nam. My grandfather was a Marine in WW2, including over a year as a POW of the Japanese. I could go into all the cousins, uncles, and various relatives that have served, but the point is that my family understands what it means to be in the military. We are fortunate that every single member who has served so far has returned alive and whole in body, if not entirely whole in spirit.

    The death of a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman is political. Our politicians decide when our Armed Forces are placed at risk, and the decision of when they face combat is partly strategy, but partly political as well. If you keep the bodies from sight; then it is a political statement. If you do not; then it is a political statement as well. It is impossible to take the politics out of it.

    Wearing a uniform is a personal statement, not a political one. Even with a voluntary service, each man or woman makes a decision every day to get up and put that uniform on. It isn't, as some would make it, that every member agrees with policy. It's that every member has the personal honor and integrity to live up to their obligation regardless of their politics.

    The problem I have with releasing pictures of remains is that there is no way to ensure that the political message behind the public use of the images would be the one that the deceased would want. Even if the families are granted controlling rights, that could never be guaranteed. This is the horrible greatness of freedom: People will not always use their freedom responsibly, but they remain free to do so, nonetheless.

    Beyond the personal statement of service, there is the political truth of it. The honor of wearing a military uniform lies in the defense of freedom, even when it is misused. We do not get to pick and choose for which freedoms we serve. We embrace them all, and to the fullest limit of their exercise.

    All of this is to say that there is no middle ground. Either the photos are kept secret or they are public, for good or for bad. This, too, is a freedom for which we all served and swore to defend to our last breath. That some were called on to surrender that breath should be remembered. If there is dishonor in the act of so doing, then it is the undying dishonor of those who choose to render it.

    Let our fallen be seen. They died without our eyes to witness them. The least we can do is give them the respect of not looking away on their final trip home.
  • DdW
    Thanks for your opinion, DG.

    My wife just read my post (quite an honor for me) and had a similar recommendation:

    Photos/videos of individual "returning home" ceremonies should only be published with the permission of the family.

    Photos/Videos of groups of heroes returning should be permitted,---by law!--- to be used ony for non-political purposes, with stringent penalties for those who violate such a rule.

    Doable? Enforceable? I don't know
  • DaGoat
    "But the deaths of these young men and women should not be used to support anyone’s political agenda, whether it favors or opposes the military actions in question."

    As in my previous comments, this is also my concern. Any public images will be invariably used to make political points, and not necessarily in a respectful manner.

    I would favor a system where images are made available to the soldier's families, who then would hold authority over their distribution. This would make the images of many coffins or large groups of coffins unavailable to the public, but I don't see another way to respect the family's privacy.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC