The Gulf War had a great deal of TV coverage, but it was heavily restricted. Supposedly this was to protect sensitive information from Iraqi military tuned to CNN but the Pentagon also feared a Vietnam redux. The top military brass felt the war in Indochina was lost because of the press’s unrestricted access to the war. To reduce the number of reporters working on ground, the Iraq war was conducted under a pool system, where any press organisation that was a member of that pool had access to everyone else’s work. On the other hand, the Pentagon tightly controlled the pools with government approved reporters and provided military escorts for any field reporting.
Just a few hours before the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire, photographer Ken Jarecke was heading back to Kuwait from Southern Iraq. Jarecke came to cover the war for Time magazine twelve hours after the air campaign began and ended up staying throughout. Now, his journey nearing its end, Jarecke came across a single truck burnt out from airstrike in the middle of Highway 8. It was a place remembered as the “Highway of Death”, where the Allied aircraft pulverized the retreating Iraqi troops.
Jarecke told his military escort that “If I don’t make pictures like this, people like my mother will think what they see in war is what they see in movies”, and went over to the burnt tank and took the above photo. At that time, it was an image challenged the prevailing notion that the Gulf War was a ‘clinical’ attack avoided ‘collateral damage’.
Jarecke’s photo was sent to the AP office in New York. The AP thought that the photo was too sensitive and too graphic even for the editors of the newspapers that are part of the co-op, and that the decision on whether or not to print the photo should not be left for the editors. They pulled it off the wire. Because of AP’s decision, the photo was unseen in America (although AP staffers made copies for themselves and privately distributed it among the photo circles).
In the UK, the London Observer and the Guardian published it, and public debate was not only on “Is this something we want to be involved in?” but also on how graphic pictures should be. Jarecke responded: “If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.”
Harold Evans, the editor-in-chief of The Times of London wrote a strong essay on why photos (and graphic photos) matter, over the moving documentary photos in 1997:
It was a solitary individual in the transfixation of a hideous death. In the absence of a photograph of this power, it had been possible to enjoy the lethal felicity of designer bombs as some kind of Video game. It had been possible to be caught up in the excitement of people rushing to escape the Scuds. There was no escape from the still silence of the corpse in Jarecke’s photograph. Once seen, it has a permanent place in one’s imagination. Anyone who can replay moving images in his mind has a very rare faculty. The moving image may make an emotional impact, but its detail and shape cannot be easily recalled. Anyone who saw that still photograph will never forget it.
22 thoughts on “Dead Iraqi Soldier”
““If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.””
Tedious, cliched, bullshit.
I’d disagree on all three points of your argument.
Tedious – perhaps difficult to swallow, but certainly not due to length or dullness
cliched – perhaps, if facing the consequences of one’s actions, or the nation that one claims, is a cliche.
bullshit – certainly not, I believe you should shoot your own dog, if it bites too many people. If you have it in you to call for or support the invasion of a sovereign nation, for any reason, you should have it in you to face the grisly evidence of that invasion’s consequences.
This is not tedious, nor is it cliched or bullshit. An opinion linked to a dismissal linked to a lie do not make you correct. Practice your debating style and try harder in future.
“If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.”
We should – but that is not what he did. He assumed the role of directing us HOW we should look at the War and WHAT we should see; he selected the views for us filtered through his own ideology and fear.
The info – again – seems to be confusing here. Is the dead guy behind the wheel of the burnt track is indeed an Iraqi soldier? Then why all this talk about “collateral damage”? If he is proved to be a civilian, why the title?
That damn Matthew Brady, that is who you are refering to right?
I copied quotation from the post. The authorship of the quotation is clearly stated in the post.
I don’t even think it matters, since most people don’t even understand the point.
War is pain, suffering, torment and tears and blood and so on and so on. Distancing from it makes it easy as it is easy to watch a Hollywood movie about it.
I don’t care if he is a civilian or military. He is a human being burned alive.
If that is not enough – then I don’t know what is.
I’m kind of thinking he didn’t sit there upright and choose to be “burned alive”. The initial impact and concussion of an exploding AGM or “dumb” bomb will kill you right quickly. I seriously doubt it he ever saw the air strike coming, or even knew what hit him. Yes, the picture looks nasty, but I’m sure one minute he was picking his nose with his shit-covered hand (aka toilet paper), and the next he was in Hell waiting on the U.S. to send Saddam there.
“He assumed the role of directing us HOW we should look at the War and WHAT we should see; he selected the views for us filtered through his own ideology and fear.”
LOL, as opposed to the completely unfiltered reporting that we’re used to seeing?
I’d have no problem with his bias – if he presented it as such, openly.
But he – and whole NYTimes tradition – pretend what they do is objective journalism.
That’s a lie.
Not many civilians drive military trucks in the middle of war zone.
Lots of civilians were murdered while trying to evacuate Kuwait.
Chomsky called it “Manufacturing Consent”, in the abortive Afghanistan/Iraq invasions, the strategy is all about protecting the will of the people at home. The Pentagon has also discouraged shots of flag-draped coffins going home on transport planes, lest US citizens begin questioning policy.
Land of the free to do what they’re told to.
Your American General Eisenhower said it of the holocaust, of a million wrangled bodies, take photos and publish them, because one day some son of a bitch wil say it didn’t happen.
It was a joke, or scarcasm if you prefer. I’m not arguing that it was particularly funny, though. Geez.
Hitler’s body was burned, too. If this post featured a photo of that instead, would anybody be writing, “If we’re being enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it”?
It’s not so much the phrase itself, but the mindless categorical pacifism, that’s what disgusting.
To that phrase I’d answer: yes, and we are big enough. We look at it, at the bodies of our enemies, and rejoice: we protected the world from worse dangers.
But those “humanists”…they remind me of an old fable: a cat got smashed by a car. A “progressive” vet will cut her damaged leg off in 10 stages, sloooooowly-slooooooowly. Dropping compassionate tears all the way. And congratulating himself on his humanism and empathy.
As a humanist I find your strawman laughable.
Wars should be fought when necessary, but we should never forget the tragedy that those who are lost are often just honest people wanting little more than to live out their lives.
I saw no ‘categorical pacifism’ here, rather an underlying message about not hiding the truth of war from those being asked to fight it or to send their sons and daughters to fight it. War shouldn’t be easy and it shouldn’t be made to appear clean, to do so is to lie and when we forget the truth of war it becomes far to easy to engage in wars that aren’t necessary and thereby waste the lives of those who serve in the armed forces.
Reality is a bitch, and we shouldn’t hide our eyes behind our hands because of that.
If i dont remember wrongly, American Photo published this photo in USA at the time. If not the cover, then inside the issue. Cant prove my memory, cos i have tossed those magazines away few years back.
[…] visualisation of this war stand out was his iconic image of the blackened, incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier bent over a steering wheel, framed by the empty windscreen of a burnt out truck. As well as being […]
[…] 1991, when his gruesome photo of a dead Iraqi soldier burnt in tank during the Gulf War was published, Ken Jarecke remarked: “If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big […]