Posted by Benjamin on: 06.17.2007 /
This is the January 18, ‘07 edition in a once-a-week series of posters (warning: some of them have fairly graphic images of death and destruction) that Washington state based activist and college student Thomas Hays has been producing since June 2004. The numbers reflect the relatively conservative death toll being reported by Iraq Body Count. In April this year, Hays started including the numbers from the Lancet Report as well.
Hays said about the posters
“The idea (for the posters) came about when I was watching the news with some older people, Vietnam War-era people, and we were saying the images on television (today) were about children running up to tanks. It wasn’t about … war. In Vietnam, you’d see people getting blown up on the news. We started brainstorming ways to get the real images out to the kids being recruited for the military, and we came up with posters.”
The posters have stirred up controversy and anger among some who have seen them as being anti-American or anti-troops. They have caused Hays some trouble with the city of Seattle as the posters have been glued to telephone poles all over the city by anti-war activists during the last 3 years. It does seem like a fairly volatile, simple way of getting one’s point across.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Helen
1 06/17/07 9:02 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I don’t know how the coverage of the Vietnam War was.
I think it’s hard to get people to care about what isn’t directly affecting them.
Thinking back - in the World Wars in England, everyone was on rations and people were evacuated, and so many people went to fight and the casualties were great enough, it touched everyone.
Perhaps the media makes it even easier for people not to take the war seriously enough - I’m not sure. I think the bigger issue is, whether peoples’ daily and personal lives are affected enough that they are forced to pay attention to the war.
BICBW :-)
Comment by: Rachel
2 06/17/07 9:29 AM | Comment Link |Helen, I think that it was when the horrifying photos began to come back from Vietnam that the public opinion really began to turn against the war. For example, there is that infamous photo of the screaming Vietnamese girl running down the road naked after a napalm attack. People became outraged when they saw what was being done in their name, not just to combatants, but to civilians as well.
I think that with the Iraq War, the Pentagon has been determined not to repeat the same mistake and they have done all they can to limit and control the flow of information, especially photographs.
Comment by: Helen
3 06/17/07 11:46 AM | Comment Link |Rachel, thanks for sharing that. It helps me see where Benjamin is coming from.
I can see why that the Pentagon would try to limit information which had caused a reaction they didn’t like in the past. I can see why - on the other hand that doesn’t mean I think it’s the right thing to do.
Comment by: Elaine
4 06/18/07 6:26 PM | Comment Link |I don’t think the media is trying to whitewash the war. I appreciate that Thomas Hays is making the posters and keeping the deaths in front of us.
What I have heard on NPR and the BBC indicates to me that the media has been very restricted in what they can publish. (see link below for timeline showing Nixon “bugging” journalist)
In 1969, I didn’t understand why we were in Vietnam. What they told us didn’t make sense to me. And, what they told us were lies. Also, remember that most of the young people who served were “drafted”.
The government was not happy with the news media during the Vietnam War. And there was still plenty we didn’t find out until afterwards.
This time, the government is even more controlling or am I just paranoid?
When our government uses language like “collateral damage” to talk about all those who are killed - both civilian and military - it reeks of marketspeak. Putting a positive spin on everything.
It is all the same to me - I see very little difference between Vietnam & Iraq. In Vietnam, we had to stop the Communists because if they took Vietnam, then it would be the rest of Southeast Asia, then Australia, and then the US…we had to make the world safe for democracy and help the Vietnamese. It was for none of those reasons they invaded Vietnam.
Now, we are in Iraq to make the world safe for democracy, again. Save us from the terrorists…
Here’s a link to the Vietnam timeline - Rachel please note the first protest was held April, 1969, also in Nov.,1969 250,000 marched on Washington (they have listed the “significant protests)and the war did not end until April, 1975 (April, 1970 was Kent State).
The protests were pretty extensive and we still did not get out until the powers that be were good and ready - much like Iraq.
Thanks to the Internet, most of us can find out all the news we want to know.
Comment by: David H
5 06/18/07 10:13 PM | Comment Link |US direct involvement ended in 1973, after the Paris Peace Accord in January of that year. I was 12 at the time, but still remember hearing the phrase “peace with honor.” That was Nixon’s sound bite for: “We left without winning, but we didn’t lose.” As I got older and read books on the war it struck me as far worse than ironic that the nation managed to exit with honor intact despite the loss of nearly 60,000 US dead, almost 250,000 S. Vietnamese army dead, close to 500,000 N. Vietnamese/Viet Cong dead, and anywhere from 1 to 10 million civilians on both sides killed. Oh, and the communists took over two years after our honorable exit.
To get a depth of insight into how news organizations were duplicitous in the management of info about the war, read Neil Sheehan’s “Bright and Shining Lie.” Sheehan wrote about the 5 o’clock Follies in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book. The follies were the pentagon press briefings held daily at 5 pm. Those briefings helped foster a sense that all was fine in the southeast asian war while events steadily spiraled down. Reporters such as Sheehan and Joseph Galloway (We were soldiers…) helped bring the real story home by skipping the follies and going into the field. There they found a reality much different than what was being reported by the government. Those reports and the effect of television correspondents following in their footsteps (Dan Rather during the Tet offensive as one example) served to emphasize the disconnect between what the American people were being told by their leaders and what was occurring on the ground.
Read the book to find other discouraging and frightening similarities between Vietnam and Iraq (rampant government corruption, ghost armies, etc.). However, what the US government and military seem to have learned from the debacle is that their big mistake was to allow the press into the field with soldiers. Press access in Iraq is more controlled than any war in American history. Arguments can be made for security reasons in combat zones, however the press restrictions carry back to this country where efforts have been made to control press coverage of returning US war dead and even casualty figures. Several stories have been done about Pentagon disembling on how many US wounded there were during the first 3 years of the war. That information might have served to shed light on what was happening with the VA hospital.
However, as a member of the media, I have to credit the US military with taking at least one lesson from Vietnam. They understand now the effect of public opinion in a democracy. The US press seems, at least during the early years of the war, to have forgotten everything it learned from the Vietnam era and returned to the days of the 5 o’clcok follies. The management at my newspaper seemed very concerned about how the American people would react to any images showing dead anything (so they didn’t run any), but they dutifully gave the Pentagon body count with every story (read Sheehan’s book to get the history and purpose of body counts). Maybe it wasn’t a whitewash, but it was certainly a soft-sell.
Things have changed a bit, but much of the bad news coming out of Iraq still begins with non-professional sources. The Haditha massacre for instance came to light because of a non-news video tape that was circulated until questions began to be asked. The Abu-Ghraib pictures and videos were kicking around for more than a year before any mainstream media organization would even touch the story.
However, what has been far more damaging to the war in terms of public opinion (IMO) has been the growing realization, much as in Vietnam, that the reality on the ground there is far different from what the government would like people to believe. And it hasn’t helped for proof to slowly emerge that the whole thing began with a series of lies or misconceptions that were fed to Americans with cold calculation. It may also hurt that some in the administration still claim that despite the lies, mistakes and avoidable problems (of which everyone is now aware) they wouldn’t do anything differently. I usually have to apologize for slip-ups on a far smaller scale.
But as for the question that opened this thread, I guess one could get angry at these posters if you felt they were reducing dead soldiers to just a number — a cold calculation if you will. That would just be wrong, wouldn’t it? To me, it is tragic if there is simply the number 1 in either of those tallies. Especially under the circumstances of this war.
Comment by: David H
6 06/19/07 1:18 AM | Comment Link |I thought about the poster while driving home from work. My thoughts coupled with listening to Taylor Mali’s excellent spoken word work (on CatE), led to the following. It isn’t poetry and not even very good, but it felt like something at 3 in the morning. Your pardon if, in the cold light of morning, it doesn’t feel the same.
3,024 on 1/18/07
What kind of new math is this, where the numbers rise but the arithmetic symbols remain unknown? What will be the sum of this equation; what will be the meaning? Will it all add up to something worthwhile in the end? Is this proof of addition by subtraction; meaning in sacrifice? Because each number has a name, and each name has a family (even if only siblings of humanity), and each family has a story (full of good and bad, love and loss, hope and disappointment), and each story has a past. But none in those numbers has a future.
So what kind of new math is this? Perhaps it isn’t new at all. But maybe the meaning can be found in its purpose; and within those goals some kind of honor no matter the final tally. But if the objective was based on one false premise — purposeful or mistaken — what does that say of the entire proposition? And if some knew the error beforehand, does that change the essential calculation? And if that misapprehension is repeated long after the veracity is known to be gone, does it become a lie? And if a lie, how long until the 1-minus 1-minus 1 of lives lost — sons and daughters, fathers, brothers, sisters, patriots all — justifies the apportionment?
What is a correlation we can understand? What is a ratio of ends and means and the blood oiling the scales that will bring understanding and, moreover, peace? Admittedly poor at such algorithms, I can think of only this: subtracting one always equals less. So we must discard the new math that insists there is sometimes gain.
Comment by: Elaine
7 06/19/07 8:52 AM | Comment Link |David, thanks for your insight on how the US press is responding today. I am glad to hear that they are struggling with their decisions on what to tell the American public. I’m sorry I’m not being paranoid to think the government is controlling what the “free” press is allowed to tell or even have access to.
I’m also grateful we have the technology today that allows citizens and soldiers in Iraq to share what they are seeing and experiencing on the ground. I rely a lot on hearing/reading what the foreign press is saying to give me a better picture of what reality is. Not perfect, but better.
I’ll try sharing this Vietnam link again…
http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline69-75.htm
The timeline does not include our “involvement” for the period beginning in 1959-1969 - the unofficial beginning in my opinion. I had classmates who died serving during the late 60s and early 70s.
Regarding US “involvement” in Vietnam ending April,1973 with the Paris Peace Accords - my friend, Russ who was on the 2nd to last helicopter out of Saigon on April 30, 1975 - felt very involved despite what that piece of paper said.
Which is also another lesson for Iraq - it took 2 years to get all of our troops out of Vietnam - how long will it take to get the 160,000-200,000 troups out of Iraq?
Comment by: Doreen Mannion
8 06/19/07 6:34 PM | Comment Link |Elaine,
I so appreciate your comments on when the Vietnam war “started” and “ended.” My uncle had buddies killed there in the late 50’s; they’re not on the Vietnam Memorial Wall because we were not “officially” there. I also know someone who was there in 1975 and lost friends, so he would disagree our “involvement” ended in 1973.
Scares me that history books will say our involvement in Iraq ended when Pres. Bush declared “mission accomplished” and “major combat operations” completed. What was that, 2500 American deaths ago?
poetcomic.blogspot.com
Comment by: Elaine
9 06/19/07 10:41 PM | Comment Link |Doreen, I’m sorry I had not paid more attention - I did not realize that the Vietnam Memorial Wall did not honor all who died serving in Vietnam. That is very sad and disturbing.
It also makes me wonder about those who have served and died since the Korean War ended.
Comment by: benjamin ady
10 06/20/07 6:40 AM | Comment Link |David,
thankyou so much for your insightful comments and your poetry. It evoked the *feeling* of the reality for me better than the posters–perhaps because I’ve gotten used to/inured to seeing posters. Did I understand that you work for a newspaper? May I ask which one? It’s fascinating to have an insider’s perspective ont the media. I hope you will continue to han around and participate in our conversation. I hadn’t heard of the 5 o’clock follies.
do you get the sense that some largish proportion of the american populace *are* depending on the major media sources for their take on the war?
Comment by: benjamin ady
11 06/20/07 6:43 AM | Comment Link |Doreen
I had no idea that some people didn’t get onto the memorial because we weren’t “officially” there yet, or had already “officially” left. That is so egregious!
War is so frightful and horrible and ugly and dark, and it just strikes me as so inordinately evil when it is glorified, and people get rich of it, and so forth.
Comment by: Rachel
12 06/20/07 9:13 AM | Comment Link |Thank you so much for that beautiful reflection, David! And thank you Elaine and David for providing more background information about Vietnam. The similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are truly disturbing.
It is indeed egregious! Does anyone know if there is any group or movement trying to correct this injustice?
Comment by: David H
13 06/20/07 1:15 PM | Comment Link |It occurred to me after the fact that my statement about when US involvement ended might appear to be pompous or insensitive. I was attempting to be ironic, but that might only be apparent to those who know the subject of “Bright and Shinning Lie.” John Vann, the subject of the book, went to Vietnam before the full-blown war began (he did his first tour in 1962 and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the closest the US came to a declaration of war, wasn’t passed until 1964) and he was among the last US personnel to die fighting in Vietnam prior to the peace accord (he was killed in June 1972). However, he was no longer a member of the US military when he was killed in action. He went back officially as a member of the State Department attached to an “aid” organization. In that capacity he acted as a general in the South Vietnamese army. He was killed while directing combat operations about 6 months before the US “peace agreement.” He was awarded the Medal of Freedom, the civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor, in a White House ceremony. His name does not appear on the Vietnam memorial.
The book references the collapse of the South Vietnam government after America’s “withdrawal,” which Vann had apparently come to believe was inevitable. It is interesting to note that US Congress set a timeline for withdrawal of US troops for Vietnam in 1974. Only a few months later North Vietnam launched what became the final offensive of the war.
I certainly don’t want to minimize US losses prior to or after that peace agreement. Sixty thousand dead can’t be ignored, especially if you know their names and their stories. Visiting the Vietnam memorial drives home in a visceral way the scope of that loss. However, I have strong feelings for those lost on other sides in that conflict. My wife is Vietnamese.
In 1999 I visited Vietnam and saw the lingering effects of a war that had concluded almost 25 years before. And while some might argue that the 500,000 NVA and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died for their respective causes, millions of civilians perished in that country (official est. from 1-4 million) and those surrounding (Cambodia - 700,000 est.; Laos - 50,000 est.) simply because of where they were born.
Likewise, I see daily the effects of that war on survivors. My wife, as an elementary-age child, had to flee under fire during the waning days of the war. She watched as her family fell apart because her father spent 11 years in and out of communist re-education camps (est. 165,000 prisoners died there) and the children were abandoned leaving her, at age 8, solely responsible for a brother and two sisters. At age 15 my wife left Vietnam on a boat carrying a group of strangers (est. 600,000 Vietnamese fled as boat people and about half died in the attempt). She endured an attack by pirates, two days in the ocean after the boat sank and two years in a refugee camp waiting to be allowed into the United States. Finally, she spent 15 years trying to save the rest of her family. I see the sins of our fathers — the leaders of this country — being passed down in my family and countless others for generations. To me each death and its tragic aftermath is the same.
When I look at the poster in question, I am moved just as much by the (ludicrously low) number next to the Iraqi flag as the (accurate to the day) figure next to the American flag. They are all people after all and most ended up in those counts through circumstances largely beyond their control. And as in Vietnam, US short-sightedness and national interests are the common denominator in the growing tragedy. I still am amazed that the US rejected Ho-Chi Minh even though he was (and is) considered a hero by the vast majority of Vietnamese people. The US also helped rig a national referendum that would have unified Vietnam because our leaders knew the “communists” would win. Instead, for 20 years they backed drug dealers, bullies and men more intent on getting rich than helping their own people.
And there lies a key and probably overwhelming difference between the Vietnam war and the one we are now fighting in Iraq. The people of Vietnam had strong differences but a stronger national identity. They all believed they were one people in a single nation. Without US involvement the unification would have occurred in 1955. It might not have been painless, but it would have happened. In Iraq there appears to be little sense of nationalism and a growing awareness of the sharp divisions between the predominant groups. Given the role the US has played there up until now it seems unlikely we will be able to bring everyone together in a constructive way no matter how many of our soldiers die or how many of their people get killed.
Comment by: David H
14 06/20/07 1:21 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I do work for a newspaper but I can be much more free in my comments about US media if I don’t identify which one. I have already gotten into trouble at work for making public comments that could be construed as critizing my newspaper. I have worked for 4 newspapers in my career as a reporter, word editor and photo editor. I am now at one of the top 20 (in terms of circulation) newspapers in the United States.
It is difficult for me to get a sense of what people rely on for their news about the war. Those who want to know seem to go all over in order to get a rounded perspective. Those who don’t want to know (and I have family members in this camp) seem to narrow their sources to those that don’t challenge them in any way. I recently spoke with my sister (I’m talking weeks here) and she didn’t know that the President of the United States had stated publicly on multiple occasions that there were no WMDs in Iraq and had never been a connection between Sadaam Hussein and al-Quaeda. She gets a lot of her information from “Christian” sources and believed that the WMDs missing in Iraq had been moved to Iran and we needed to start our war against that country in the near future.
Where do the vast majority of Americans get their war news? Obviously more are seeking more information, but it is hard for many to know what sources to trust. Journalism, for a variety of reasons, has done itself few favors in the years since Watergate. The industry has done much to descredit itself. However, the current administration (dare I say regime) spends quite a bit of time trying to make the American people distrust the free press. Members of the Bush administration have gone so far as to say a free press is no longer relevant or necessary in this country (there is always the Drudge Report after all).
The internet has lowered the barrier for dissemination of information. That has been good in some respects because it has allowed stories to become known that would never have come to light in the past. However, it doesn’t really help answer the question of who can you trust to get the truth about anything.
My best guess is that most Americans these days turn to information sources that tell them things with which they already agree. Getting them to look beyond those sources appears to be becomming increasingly difficult BECAUSE of the vast array of information choices provided by the internet.
Comment by: Replacements Needed
15 06/21/07 11:32 PM | Comment Link |Thank you all for your comments I am glad that the posters are contributing to public discussion. it seems that we have angered some military folks in Florida and Rhode Island lately with our latest posters.
This was sent to me by a friend and fellow patriot on myspace it seems that we have angered some military families and that there is an organized campaign under way to shut down our myspace page. We encourage everyone who is not already our friend to join and to let those in charge of myspace know that we have support.
The rest of the 50 or so emails continue in such fashion. Some are pretty graphic in descriptions of what should be done to me, but that comes with the territory.
Feel free to get back with us if there is anything we can do to help you in your fight.
TH
Comment by: Helen
16 06/22/07 8:32 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Replacements Needed. I added a little formatting to it - I indented the quoted section so it would be clearer you were quoting other people.
I hope you will be able to continue to have the voice you seek, in order to continue your legitimate protest against the war.
Comment by: Elaine
17 06/22/07 10:30 AM | Comment Link |David - thank you for what you have added to this discussion. You write very well. It is no wonder you are a journalist. It is good to know that there are journalists striving to provide an unbiased and more complete picture of the world. Thank you.
In re-reading my comments, it helped me to realize how much growing up with the Vietnam War (I was 11 in 1959) contributed to my feelings about war.
I was not offended by your saying our “involvement” ended in 1973. More concerned that those who are younger understand that “involvement” was government “speak” - code for the war isn’t really over…
Just as now in Iraq, “mission accomplished” doesn’t mean the war is over…our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are still dying.
Yes, I think I agree with your referring to it as the Bush “regime”. I can not keep up with all the anti-democratic (anti-American) things that come out of their mouths AND they get away with.
When Bush was elected for a 2nd term, I was shocked by my strong feelings of distress. It took me several days to put myself back together. It was disturbing to learn that my co-workers (all good people) were pleased with his re-election. How could I have engaged them in a conversation before the election?
I have lived through many Presidents - this is the first to fill me with a sense of doom. How is it we have we have abdicated our role and voice as citizens?
How is it we have forgotten the “government” serves US, not the other way around?
Comment by: Helen
18 06/28/07 7:13 AM | Comment Link |By the way, I posted some of David H’s comments from here in a new post on Conversation at the Edge:
Which information sources are trustworthy?