Iraq: The Unseen War

The grim reality of Iraq rarely appears in the American press. This photo gallery reveals the war's horrible human toll.

Aug. 23, 2005 This is a war the Bush administration does not want Americans to see. From the beginning, the U.S. government has attempted to censor information about the Iraq war, prohibiting photographs of the coffins of U.S. troops returning home and refusing as a matter of policy to keep track of the number of Iraqis who have been killed. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

To be sure, this see-no-evil approach is neither surprising nor new. With the qualified exception of the Vietnam War, when images of body bags appeared frequently on the nightly news, American governments have always tightly controlled images of war. There is good reason for this. In war, a picture really is worth a thousand words. No story about a battle, no matter how eloquent, possesses the raw power of a photograph. And when it comes to war's ultimate consequences - death and suffering - there is simply no comparison: a photo of a dead man or woman has the capacity to unsettle those who see it, sometimes forever. The bloated corpses photographed by Matthew Brady after Antietam remain in the mind, their puffy, shocked faces haunting us like an obscene truth almost 150 years after the soldiers were cut down.

Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality - the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem - is to risk eroding popular support for it. This is particularly true with wars that have less than overwhelming popular support to begin with. In the case of Vietnam, battlefield images played an important role in turning the tide of public opinion. And in Iraq, a war whose official justification has turned out to be false, and which a majority of the American people now believe to have been a mistake, the administration would prefer that these grim images never be seen.

The reluctance of American publications to run shocking images contrasts with the European press. "In my experience and in conversations with other people who've been doing this a lot longer than me, American publications shy away from extremely graphic material, compared to European ones," says Prothero. "I don't know whether the American audience reacts more strongly against seeing that over the breakfast table. I do know, anecdotally, that many very talented photographers, on staff, have taken pictures that have not run in magazines or newspapers. Maybe it's not a conscious decision but American publications very much shy away from showing casualties of U.S. troops on the ground. I think they're afraid the American public will freak out on them for showing dead American boys."

It is because we believe that the American people are not getting a look at the reality of the Iraq war, for Americans and Iraqis alike, that we decided to run this photo gallery. It is no secret that Salon has published many more pieces questioning and challenging the Iraq war than supporting it. But that is not why we think it is important that these images be seen. We would have run them even if we supported the war. The reason is simple: The truth should be told. People should know the truth about war. Before a nation decides to go to war, it should know what its consequences are.

There is no way for any journalist, whether reporter or photographer, to capture the multifaceted reality of Iraq. But all of the journalists I have spoken to who have worked in Iraq say that the blandly optimistic pronouncements made by the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq are completely false. A picture of a dead child only represents a fragment of the truth about Iraq - but it is one that we do not have the right to ignore. We believe we have an ethical responsibility to those who have been killed or wounded, whether Iraqis, Americans or those of other nationalities, not to simply pretend that their fate never happened. To face the bitter truth of war is painful. But it is better than hiding one's eyes.

Source:
Salon.com News

I agree with the statement of the former US General Sherman that said: "War is Hell!". I have seen Images of War from the Civil War in Former Yugoslavia, and it is really painful to see the raw truth right before your eyes, especially in the form of Images - in this case Photos - which speak more then a Thousand Words.

It is pretty clear why the US Goverment and the Military officials would not allow this kind of pictures, that you are about to see, to be published in Newspapers and Magazines. They really don't want the Public to face the bitter truth of War in Iraq and how big Human Cost it takes. They want the public to keep pretending that War is Clean. But mostly they are afraid that the American Public will freak and start a Major Anti-War movement, which is what they are mostly afraid of.

American Public does not have a Look into the Bloody Reality of the Iraq War.

But the Truth Should not be Hidden.

Actually it Can not be Hidden for a Long time.

Truth has Enormous Power, and like Mahatma Gandhi said once:

"The truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction".

Here You have the Truth about the War in Iraq - in Pictures.

WARNING!

Gallery Contains Images of War, which are Very Explicit and Shocking. For Mature Audience ONLY!

Direct Link to the Gallery

You are right Souljah, certain pictures CANNOT be hidden from the public. I have found a few that I would like to share as well:

WARNING: The pics I have posted below contain nothing offensive or graphic in any way shape or form, they do depict excessive happyness and smiling.












































I just wanted to thank you Souljah for starting a htread like this, its about time we all got to see whats really going on in Iraq. THANKS!

[edit on 23-8-2005 by skippytjc]

Skippy, you could probably find images just like that from when the Soviets were in Afghanistan and I'm sure there were similar images when the US was in Vietnam. A few smiling children doesn't mean there's a majority support for the US in Iraq.

Read the following article about the Soviets in Afghanistan that was printed by the Washington Times in 1987:

Afghans learning to read, but lessons laud Soviets

When the students were asked to raise their hands if they could think of at least one "bad thing" about the United States, 29 of a sample classroom's 31 students responded.

They listed unemployment and crime, the nuclear weapons program and Washington's support for the guerrillas fighting to oust 115,000 Soviet troops from Afghanistan and overthrow the Kabul government.

Anything bad about the Soviet Union? Not a single hand was raised.

"My favorite subject is Russian language," said Mohammed Homian, 16. "I want to continue my studies in the Soviet Union to be an engineer."

The students are ambitious: Others want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, architects, journalists or pilots.

Capt. Abdul Gafar, who teaches "army subjects" while dressed in uniform with two tank-shaped medals pinned to his chest, said, "I teach the purpose of the army, and I train students to be troops.

"My subject is compulsory for boys aged 16 years and older. It is optional for girls. Every school has army class," Capt. Gafar added.

Schools also teach mathematics, history, literature, languages and other subjects.

The government's lessons are not limited to classrooms. Political posters and slogans are splashed across buildings and walls throughout Kabul and other cities and towns.

On a wall outside the School of Revolution, for example, a poster declares, "Down With Exploiters." Its shows a shovel, a pencil, a hammer and a huge machine cog chasing Uncle Sam, a Chinese man and a bearded man. The poster castigates the United States, China and Pakistan for aiding the guerrillas.

Whatever Ace

For the same reason Souljah feels that those pictures need to be seen, and I dont dissagree, but I feel the ones I have found need to be seen as well.

But thanks for your input, keep up the great work Slick...er Ace!!

Originally posted by skippytjc
Whatever Ace

For the same reason Souljah feels that those pictures need to be seen, and I dont dissagree, but I feel the ones I have found need to be seen as well.

But thanks for your input, keep up the great work Slick...er Ace!!

Hey Hata.

It's apparent Souljah's actions have angered you, but I do have to say those are nice pictures you posted.

But what's your point? Souljah just wants to show what exactly happens in a war. What you show is not disputed by anybody, in fact, that's all we're seeing from Iraq.

We need to see a balance and right now, that's not happening. We need to see the bad in order to appreciate all the good that's happening in Iraq.

Originally posted by skippytjc
You are right Souljah, certain pictures CANNOT be hidden from the public. I have found a few that I would like to share as well:

WARNING: The pics I have posted below contain nothing offensive or graphic in any way shape or form, they do depict excessive happyness and smiling.

I just wanted to thank you Souljah for starting a htread like this, its about time we all got to see whats really going on in Iraq. THANKS!

The Problem with the Photos YOU Found and Shared with us is that they are NOT Hidden from the Public - actually they are the Opposite of that. These are the Photos that make this War Worth the Slaughter and the Killings, these are the photos that the Military WANTS the American Public to see and to turn their heads away from the Bitter Reality of the Iraq War - which is represented in the Gallery I have posted. There is the Raw Truth of War.

And it's not Hatred, but Bitter Reality and the Face of War and the Cost of Human Lives in this War in Iraq.

There is no way for any journalist, whether reporter or photographer, to capture the multifaceted reality of Iraq. But all of the journalists I have spoken to who have worked in Iraq say that the blandly optimistic pronouncements made by the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq are completely false.

The pictures you provided are in no way shape or form hidden from the public. If you want to see the uglyness of the war, you just need a PC, just like you have shown.

Dont confuse "hidden" with "unpopular". Just because the media doesnt want to show you some of those pictures doesnt mean they are hidden.

Heck, if you want pics of dead US soldiers (and I think YOU do) I have a few sources, I dont post them because I dont need to, the insurgents do enough of that...

And to Sweat: He hasnt angred me, he simply has done what he always does: Make a post to show his opinion that the USA is evil and responsible for all the terrible things in the world. I expect nothing less from him.

Originally posted by skippytjc
The pictures you provided are in no way shape or form hidden from the public. If you want to see the uglyness of the war, you just need a PC, just like you have shown.

Dont confuse "hidden" with "unpopular". Just because the media doesnt want to show you some of those pictures doesnt mean they are hidden.

Heck, if you want pics of dead US soldiers (and I think YOU do) I have a few sources, I dont post them because I dont need to, the insurgents do enough of that...

And to Sweat: He hasnt angred me, he simply has done what he always does: Make a post to show his opinion that the USA is evil and responsible for all the terrible things in the world. I expect nothing less from him.

Yes they ARE Hidden - not everybody Surfs the Net and looks for pictures from Iraq. Most of the people watch TV in America as I know, and then there are those who read the Newspapers. Media is very, and I meay VERY, under the looking glass of the Military, so pictures like this don't get published and they don't get to be seen by the Majority. People don't know what really goes on in Iraq. Why is that? Why is that Hidden?

From the Original Article:

Editors in the states are reluctant to run graphic photographs. There are various reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is taste: Many publications think graphic images are just too disturbing. Business considerations doubtless also play a role, although few editors would admit that; graphic images upset some readers and can scare off advertisers. (Salon pulled all advertising, except house ads, off the pages of this gallery.) And there are political considerations: Supporters of the war often accuse the media of playing up bad news at the expense of more positive developments. To run images of corpses is to risk being criticized of antiwar bias. When "Nightline" ran photographs of the faces of all the U.S. troops who had been killed in Iraq, conservative groups were enraged and accused the network of harming morale. Not every publisher is anxious to walk into this kind of trouble.

Why shouldn't the People know what kind of War this really is?

Why is the only thing they should see, "Shiny Happy People of Iraq" which you have posted with your images? Sure, they are a part of Iraq Today too, but they are NOT the Only Part of Iraq. And that means somebody is telling only one side of the story.

People DESERVE to Know the Truth - and usually people are also Scared of it too.

So I understand your Reaction to these Pictures - they are pretty Shocking.

I may have jumped too soon to counter your pictures skippy.
There's nothing wrong with them. I think we can all agree that there's both good and bad things going on over there.

I even posted a link to similar pictures myself a while back.
network54

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I even posted a link to similar pictures myself a while back.
network54

Nice Photos.

But not exactly the "Unseen War" Type.

That's all we see from War in Iraq.

Like this is the "Cleanest" war of them all....

Both set of photos are reality. Their is dead and dispair in war, but also their can be smiles and appreciation.

Go to Yahoo, click images then type Iraq War. (warning their graphic)

Im not saying Iraq is pleasant but from many of the soldiers i've spoken too can tell a different story.


BTW, nice photos Ace.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by evanfitz]

I have pictures taken by my son, who most will know that he did six months in Iraq.

They depict the good and bad and absolutely atrocious. I posted a few a while back, depicting the conditions that the Iraq's have to contend with.
They also show smiling faces of children.

The ones i did not post ,show the death and destruction, caused not just by the coalition, but by the suicide bombers too.

Do people really want to see them? Do people actually get pleasure out of seeing smashed and mangled bodies?

We are all adults here, and can imagine what things are like, but do we really need it ramming down our throats?

I could say to hell with this, and post some of the most graphic pictures that you are likely to see that are not even on the WEB, or have been seen by anyone other than myself and my sons mates who served with him.

Some may ask "why take pictures like that?" I don't honestly know the answer to that one, but why do we have to see actual images of death to help us understand what is going on?

Originally posted by evanfitz
Both set of photos are reality. Their is dead and dispair in war, but also their can be smiles and appreciation.

Go to Yahoo, click images then type Iraq War. (warning their graphic)

Im not saying Iraq is pleasant but from many of the soldiers i've spoken too can tell a different story.

Ofcourse there are Several Sides to the situation in Iraq today.

Facts are that the Military used Censorship almost everytime and the War in Iraq is no Exception.

Military just shows a Very One Sided Story.

That was my Point.

Originally posted by Souljah

Ofcourse there are Several Sides to the situation in Iraq today.

Facts are that the Military used Censorship almost everytime and the War in Iraq is no Exception.

Military just shows a Very One Sided Story.

That was my Point.

Do you not think that the censorship is there to protect the viewing public who do not want to see such images?
Censorship is there to stop any facts leaking out that could be used against the forces trying to control an area etc.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that the media are censored from publishing any images like the ones you linked to? As i said before, that is to protect people who do not wish to see those types of images. for those that do, then they can see them on the Web anytime they want.

Great post of pictures. There's good and bad in any conflict and you bring out the good and make me think there is still a chance for all Iraqis to smile and be happy in a democratic and liberated Middle East State - thanks !

Dallas

Ofcourse there are Several Sides to the situation in Iraq today.

Facts are that the Military used Censorship almost everytime and the War in Iraq is no Exception.

Military just shows a Very One Sided Story.

That was my Point.

Point taken, military will try anything to recruit, Bush admin samething; but I can tell that each time I search up Iraq all I see is bodies of men women and children.

I can also point out that foreign has been a bit biased in their reporting lately. That can be effective to those who dont venture much on the internet or dont do much tourism.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Do you not think that the censorship is there to protect the viewing public who do not want to see such images?
Censorship is there to stop any facts leaking out that could be used against the forces trying to control an area etc.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that the media are censored from publishing any images like the ones you linked to? As i said before, that is to protect people who do not wish to see those types of images. for those that do, then they can see them on the Web anytime they want.

The Censorship is there to Prevent the Public from seeing the Whole Story and to see it from a Very One Sided point of view: smiling people that wave the American Flag. Every war has to be approved by the People - and the American Troops are the Majority of the Coalition Forces, therefore the American Public must keep a Positive Opinion over the War in Iraq in order for the troops to stay there.

For Example European Press will publish Images of War, such as seen in the Gallery posted here. They will show that side of the War - why? Because they don't have anything to Loose with that action, they won't loose the Public Opinion about the War, or even if they do - who Cares, there are not alot of European Troops in Iraq (if we don't include United Kingdom).

American Goverment is Scared that Images like that will bring even more Anti-War Movement, which is not what they really need right now, with all eyes on them and all eyes on Post-War Iraq and the Situation with Detention Camps and Alot of Corruption among the Corporations involved in this Conflict.

Last thing they need is a Civil Revolt over some Photos!

From the Article:

The reluctance of American publications to run shocking images contrasts with the European press. "In my experience and in conversations with other people who've been doing this a lot longer than me, American publications shy away from extremely graphic material, compared to European ones," says Prothero. "I don't know whether the American audience reacts more strongly against seeing that over the breakfast table. I do know, anecdotally, that many very talented photographers, on staff, have taken pictures that have not run in magazines or newspapers. Maybe it's not a conscious decision but American publications very much shy away from showing casualties of U.S. troops on the ground. I think they're afraid the American public will freak out on them for showing dead American boys."

Hell they dont show images of decaptitated bodies from car accidents on the news when they are covering an accident, or shreeded up bodies from going through the windshield, Damn that media and gov for keeping those images secret damn them!

Hey soul why, dont ya post pics of Paul Johnson or Nick Berg? the media doesnt show those to us either.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by C0le]

So what you are trying to say Souljah is, basically the European media are not censored in what they publish or show, but the American media is?

Just been looking through the BBC web site for any "graphic" images and i cannot find any there. Maybe they are censored too?

Censorship is not just happening in the US, but around the World. The link you posted sent me to an Italian site. Not sure if its a reputable source run by any reputable media network.

Originally posted by C0le
Hell they dont show images of decaptitated bodies from car accidents on the news when they are covering an accident, or shreeded up bodies from going through the windshield, Damn that media and gov for keeping those images secret damn them!

I think people Should see pictures of Accidents and they would Think TWICE when driving too fast or Ignoring any of the Traffic Signs and Endagering Themselves and Others in the Traffic. With the Images in their heads they would drive VERY carefully and would Never drink&drive, don't you think so?



[edit on 23/8/05 by Souljah]