Once again, the Times runs a rant platformed off the Dover policy precluding filming of the bodies of the fallen arriving at Dover Air Force Base. Frankly, I think the policy is wrong. But I also believe that fears that the footage would cut into public support are wrong. During the first part of World War II, there was rigid censorship over any images of fallen soldiers. When they finally lifted the policy, after Buna Beach in the Pacific, it had the opposite effect -- it reminded people of the cost of war, and of what we were fighting for. But I say, call the press's bluff. Lift the policy and, to make a point, every network would air the footage, every paper a still or two -- for about a week. After which they'd get bored and move on.
But these arguments are getting sillier and sillier. Here the President is criticized for not meeting with the families of the fallen "at least when there might be a camera around." Talk about not being able to win. His decision to meet with these families whenever he is at a military base privately so that he cannot be accused of doing so for political gain has now been turned against him: it is a way of "hiding" the costs of war. But if he met with these families publicly, then he would be accused of being compassionate only for the cameras, of capitalizing on the situation, of politicizing grief.
But the really elegant move here is to blame the administration for the lack of press coverage. Writes the author, "Along with the coverage of these casualties, the coverage of combat in Iraq has virtually ceased. The "embedded" correspondents who reported on the stunningly swift march to Baghdad during the invasion are gone. The Pentagon has ended the program. The ever-upbeat Mr. Rumsfeld likes to say that the attacks on American soldiers are brief and relatively few in number, compared with the number of men in arms in the field in Iraq. But without real news coverage, it's hard to know the truth." Well I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, for the author, the program existed all these months and as far as I know exists still. I'll double check this again today, but as of quite recently the military was begging reporters to embed for short periods -- there were no takers other than the occassional -- wait for it -- Fox reporter. They can't be bothered to leave their Baghdad hotels. Pam Hess of UPI, I believe, took the Marines up on their offer, and did exceptional work over the summer, but she's since returned to the Pentagon beat. The Pentagon can't dragoon reporters into participating in the program.
But isn't it interesting to see a Times editorialist suggesting that embedding provides, not "cheerleading" but quality reporting, and that it is the lack of embedding -- a program reporters have refused to participate in for all these months -- that has left us uninformed. Given that the program has been available all this time that says more about the quality of coverage we've received than it does about the administration.
As to his other demand, that "someone of rank" from the White House attend every military funeral, it is more than a pragmatic problem. The military attends these funerals and thanks the family for the American people. When these editorialists demand political officials be in attendance they want them there because what they really want is for the families to get an apology. Symbolically, politically, ritually, that cannot happen.
In the midst of war these families deserve our gratitude, our respect, "the thanks of a grateful nation." Neither the political leadership nor the American people can apologize for casualties of war. It would make the fighting of wars impossible. That may well be the outcome some editorialists want, but it cannot be an outcome the rest of us can ever support.
