My brother returned home from Mosul in January after being there for 15 months. I cant tell you how much Facebook helped us stay in touch and still feel somewhat connected. He couldn't always get access to a phone so when he messaged me or when I saw that he wrote on someone's wall or did something on Facebook I felt so relieved. It literally made my day when I saw ‘John Rogers wrote on so and so’s wall 2 minutes ago’ because I knew he was healthy, ok, and still in one piece. He loved that he could still catch up on what his friends were doing and see pictures etc.
If certain soldiers abuse social networking take it away from them individually, not all soldiers. We should be giving more to the American men and women who fight and die for our country, not taking things away.
To be fair, it's only blocked on work computers on work networks - SIPR and NIPR types. If you head to the internet cafe (usually most larger FOBs have 3 or 4, while smaller JSS/Patrol Bases/COPs have a room in the building set up for it), you can access whatever internet you want, from Skype and Myspace to Facebook and Yahoo! Messenger. The cafes go through satellite, I believe connecting somewhere along the way to HughesNet, and are free to use for all personnel over there (and usually run by military signal Soldiers and kept in the MWR - Morale Welfare and Recreation - kits).
@FrankenPC: A thought occurs to me. Perhaps it's the lack of disconnect from home that is leading a trained soldier down a path of misfortune. They might be better off concentrating more on their duties than thinking about things at home. I'm not saying I'm right, but as far as pyschology goes, it might be something to think about.
@Persistence: Good point. But, I think that would only work for a year or two. Some of these people have been in the battlefield for 5 years. Actively getting shelled and shot at. A lot of suicides occur after they return along with PTSS. War is grand.
I am a Marine mom. Indulge me for a moment because that is my son in image 9! These pictures are the only way that I can get a glimpse into what my son is doing. I agree with the author that America is not aware of what is truly going on in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. God bless America and God bless our troops. Thanks for the article.
Is this some kind of snarky joke that I don't understand because I'm too old or because I have read Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" (It's here: http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html) one too many times?
With the possible exception of image 9, we've seen all of this preposterous warmongering jingoistic shit in a million different ways: on television, in video games, in recruiting brochures.
Where are the pictures of head injury victims and double amputees from Walter Reed? Where are the pictures of the men and women whose lives have been ruined by PTSD?
@Terry: These pics--with the exception of image 9, which looks to my eye like a pre-dug cemetery--are propaganda of the first order. I'm surprised John Cook, who is usually more of a skepticism-driven ball buster, signed off on this series.
@lawyergay: I don't think Cook was attempting to glamorize the war in Afghanistan. Rather, he was attempting to remind people that there is a war in Afghanistan, and that it is intensifying. I agree with your point that the American public needs greater exposer to the true costs of war: death, crippling injuries, both physical and/or mental. But I think you are being a little unfair here by claiming that Cook posted warporn. There is another issue with publishing photos of the dead, dying and gravely injured, and that is the rights associated with the victim and their families.
@lawyergay: You will find those images right where I did: at Cryptome, which has posted them from Day One. From before Day One, actually. That they also posted these does not count as a strike against them in my opinion.
I think your comment sort of denigrates the efforts and sacrifices of US troops.
What is the difference between war porn and combat photography? Those images, with the exception of numbers 5 and 11, look like any image a photo-journalist would take in the field and that any news publication would run. And numbers 5 and 11 ... they just don't bother me that much. Do you actually believe John Cook posted them because he's trying to get Gawker readers to enlist? Those two photos document and humanize the soldiers who are risking their lives over there to fight very bad people.
Also, maybe ask yourself how the soldiers who are in those pictures might feel about them. If I were a solider in any of those photos, I'd probably be pretty psyched to have my service and the war in general rendered a little more visible to the American public.
And as far as publishing pictures of maimed soldiers ... to what end? Do you think readers don't know that war is terrible?
While the consequences of the war, physical and emotional, is a valid story, that kind of shock-photography is also war porn of a different stripe.
@RonnSicTorossian: "Do you think readers don't know that war is terrible? "
Actually, I don't think most of them do. I think most people only know what they're told, and what we're being told is that modern wars are 'smart' and 'clean'. We are not being shown the terrible side of war, and I think that this results in the average American being unaware of it.
@raincoaster: I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Day One." Is the fact that some random website has been posting war porn from "Day One" somehow noble?
If you want to see some real war photography, check out the Kathy Griffin "Life on the D List" episode from Walter Reed. I'm serious. And then maybe talk to some people who have actually served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, please shut your piehole.
@RonnSicTorossian: You know what "denigrates the efforts and sacrifices of US troops" most? Idiots like you who like to sit in front of their computers and cheer on wars.
You seem to be fairly passionate about our troops fighting in our name overseas. Why don't you enlist?
I'd be happy to point you in the direction of your nearest recruiting office. Just let me know if you need help.
You can also probably find something here: http://www.goarmy.com/index.jsp?bl=Careers+%26+Jobs#/?marquee=vw&channel=careers
@lawyergay: "..You know what "denigrates the efforts and sacrifices of US troops" most? Idiots like you who like to sit in front of their computers and cheer on wars..."
I think you missed the point of the comment. The comment wasn't 'pro-war'. Check the sentence construction. It merely points out that graphic imagery in war photos can be used as propaganda, both for and against.
The other point that s/he makes, is that thoughtful photojournalists always think about how the shots they get would be interpreted by those whom they photograph, and the effect that their work will have on those that they document. It's one of those 'professionalism' things.
These images aren't documenting Mei Lai. This isn't really a scoop, or anything. I understand your frustration at President Obama's increasing US involvement in Afghanistan. But I haven't seen voluminous official cover-ups there, like were common in Viet Nam. The military is actually quite open about reporters, if anyone wants to go.
Have you gone to see it yourself? Are you active or reserve? Or is this only a simulcrum of actual, personal revulsion? The first time you see someone who died violently, the whole 'honor, duty, valor' thing gets ripped away quite rudely. You should interview some of the guys there. They will point that out.
@Terry: Lawyergay promoted this observation before I could get to it, but I have to remark, that I do indeed sympathize with your pessimism about the awareness of the average American. Two things though.
First, RonnSicTorossian was referring to GMN readers, who are substantially more discriminating than the 'average citizen'. I think most of us, after all these years of war, have gotten a clue, so to speak, one way or another.
Second, I worry that it is commentary like yours, which sounds as though it is only the author who 'understands', is the sort of thing that leaves those of us who are trying to advance a progressive agenda, open to the charge of 'elitism' and the like.
If it is true, that the average American is unaware, as you say, then perhaps all that is required, is making them aware. Histrionics may actually be counterproductive...
I am extremely pleased that the US is finally paying attention to Afghanistan again. With so many nations investing their resources and troops there, it deserves more attention.
"These images should be on the front page of the New York Times every day, or at least every week."
The Times runs stories--maybe not pictures (even though they're easy to read!)--but stories on Afghanistan on its front page and high up on its website home page quite often. I'm talking a lot. They're there if you bother to read them. I'm getting sort of bored/frustrated when lazy uninformed Americans blame journalists for not covering the war in Afghanistan when the truth is much closer to the fact that they would rather read about Jon and Kate than a fucking war. But please, there are plenty of journalists in Afghanistan right now filing stories into the black hole of what you care about.
Why report on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China or any other hotspot in the world -- heck, why report on *anything* of note -- when you can just fill up 24 hours with press releases from politicians and celebrities, all strung together with punditry?
All it takes is one unpaid broadcasting intern manning the computer that press releases come across, whose services are then applied towards college credit. Actual coverage requires paying reporters because they need to live.
08/04/09
If certain soldiers abuse social networking take it away from them individually, not all soldiers. We should be giving more to the American men and women who fight and die for our country, not taking things away.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
07/22/09
07/17/09
With the possible exception of image 9, we've seen all of this preposterous warmongering jingoistic shit in a million different ways: on television, in video games, in recruiting brochures.
Where are the pictures of head injury victims and double amputees from Walter Reed? Where are the pictures of the men and women whose lives have been ruined by PTSD?
There's no such thing as a sexy war.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/18/09
exposure. damn wine.
07/18/09
07/18/09
I think your comment sort of denigrates the efforts and sacrifices of US troops.
What is the difference between war porn and combat photography? Those images, with the exception of numbers 5 and 11, look like any image a photo-journalist would take in the field and that any news publication would run. And numbers 5 and 11 ... they just don't bother me that much. Do you actually believe John Cook posted them because he's trying to get Gawker readers to enlist? Those two photos document and humanize the soldiers who are risking their lives over there to fight very bad people.
Also, maybe ask yourself how the soldiers who are in those pictures might feel about them. If I were a solider in any of those photos, I'd probably be pretty psyched to have my service and the war in general rendered a little more visible to the American public.
And as far as publishing pictures of maimed soldiers ... to what end? Do you think readers don't know that war is terrible?
While the consequences of the war, physical and emotional, is a valid story, that kind of shock-photography is also war porn of a different stripe.
07/18/09
07/18/09
Actually, I don't think most of them do. I think most people only know what they're told, and what we're being told is that modern wars are 'smart' and 'clean'. We are not being shown the terrible side of war, and I think that this results in the average American being unaware of it.
I think you overestimate your fellow citizens.
07/19/09
If you want to see some real war photography, check out the Kathy Griffin "Life on the D List" episode from Walter Reed. I'm serious. And then maybe talk to some people who have actually served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, please shut your piehole.
07/19/09
You seem to be fairly passionate about our troops fighting in our name overseas. Why don't you enlist?
I'd be happy to point you in the direction of your nearest recruiting office. Just let me know if you need help.
You can also probably find something here: http://www.goarmy.com/index.jsp?bl=Careers+%26+Jobs#/?marquee=vw&channel=careers
07/19/09
I think you missed the point of the comment. The comment wasn't 'pro-war'. Check the sentence construction. It merely points out that graphic imagery in war photos can be used as propaganda, both for and against.
The other point that s/he makes, is that thoughtful photojournalists always think about how the shots they get would be interpreted by those whom they photograph, and the effect that their work will have on those that they document. It's one of those 'professionalism' things.
These images aren't documenting Mei Lai. This isn't really a scoop, or anything. I understand your frustration at President Obama's increasing US involvement in Afghanistan. But I haven't seen voluminous official cover-ups there, like were common in Viet Nam. The military is actually quite open about reporters, if anyone wants to go.
Have you gone to see it yourself? Are you active or reserve? Or is this only a simulcrum of actual, personal revulsion? The first time you see someone who died violently, the whole 'honor, duty, valor' thing gets ripped away quite rudely. You should interview some of the guys there. They will point that out.
(Retired US. Navy, myself.)
07/19/09
First, RonnSicTorossian was referring to GMN readers, who are substantially more discriminating than the 'average citizen'. I think most of us, after all these years of war, have gotten a clue, so to speak, one way or another.
Second, I worry that it is commentary like yours, which sounds as though it is only the author who 'understands', is the sort of thing that leaves those of us who are trying to advance a progressive agenda, open to the charge of 'elitism' and the like.
If it is true, that the average American is unaware, as you say, then perhaps all that is required, is making them aware. Histrionics may actually be counterproductive...
Just a thought.
07/17/09
Semper fidelis.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
The Times runs stories--maybe not pictures (even though they're easy to read!)--but stories on Afghanistan on its front page and high up on its website home page quite often. I'm talking a lot. They're there if you bother to read them. I'm getting sort of bored/frustrated when lazy uninformed Americans blame journalists for not covering the war in Afghanistan when the truth is much closer to the fact that they would rather read about Jon and Kate than a fucking war. But please, there are plenty of journalists in Afghanistan right now filing stories into the black hole of what you care about.
07/17/09
All it takes is one unpaid broadcasting intern manning the computer that press releases come across, whose services are then applied towards college credit. Actual coverage requires paying reporters because they need to live.
Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense!
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
Well excyouuuuuuuuuusseeee me!
07/17/09
07/17/09
Then the current coverage would have to be the failure of all journalists.
07/17/09
#4 really gets to me. He looks like a kid I grew up with.
07/17/09