Do those who send people off to war

[TomB]

then ban any media coverage of the returning corpses claim it's not repression of free speech because they are unable to admit to themselves the gravity of the act they chose?

[JW Frogen]

That would depend on why they are banning the photos, if they are banning the photos because the press is sapping the will to fight a winnable war they may be saying the gravity of what they chose is too great to loose the war and have them die in vain.

WW2 would be instructive here, the press was allowed on campaigns but the reporting was heavily censored until the campaign, or battle was won.

Had the civilian public witnessed some of the carnage at say D-Day or the battle of Okinawa, not being strong like warriors they might have said we can not win and demanded some sort of surrender or compromise leading to defeat.

[Postul8]

Had the civilian public witnessed some of the carnage at say D-Day or the battle of Okinawa, not being strong like warriors they might have said we can not win and demanded some sort of surrender or compromise leading to defeat.

How very demeaning of a generation of which you are not a part.

[Jovial Monk]

I don't think the coffins of the fallen have ever been secretly snuck back into the US before! Bush is a Pustule!

[Postul8]

I don't think the coffins of the fallen have ever been secretly snuck back into the US before! Bush is a Pustule!

The issue is to do with media not being permitted to know when the returning fallen were coming back into the country, nor being permitted to cover the return, for fear of the previous administration losing public support for an illegal and unjust war. without media coverage, said coffins were in effect being 'snuck' back into the country.

[JW Frogen]

I don't think the coffins of the fallen have ever been secretly snuck back into the US before! Bush is a Pustule!

The issue is to do with media not being permitted to know when the returning fallen were coming back into the country, nor being permitted to cover the return, for fear of the previous administration losing public support for an illegal and unjust war. without media coverage, said coffins were in effect being 'snuck' back into the country.

No the problem was they believed the relentless press examination of the deaths without putting it into historical or strategic context (this war having one of the lowest death rates for a war of this duration ever) was sapping the political support needed in order to buy the time turn the war around, a war which most of the press, wrongly, chanted could not be turned around.

Politicians during WW2 were well aware that support at the home front would erode as well if the there was constant reporting of the death and sacrifice without the long term wisdom putting it into context, and so censored.

Bush was doing nothing new.

Indeed, Vietnam was the first war in US history where the press had almost uncensored access and they certainly helped the enemy (the North Vietnamese were very aware the US press unwittingly was playing to their strategy) as when they reported the massive defeat the North Vietnamese suffered during TET as a North Vietnamese victory.

[Postul8]

Politicians during WW2 were well aware that support at the home front would erode as well if the there was constant reporting of the death and sacrifice without the long term wisdom putting it into context, and so censored.

Indeed, Vietnam was the first war in US history where the press had almost uncensored access and they certainly helped the enemy (the North Vietnamese were very aware the US press unwittingly was playing to their strategy) as when they reported the massive defeat the North Vietnamese suffered during TET as a North Vietnamese victory.

And there you have it Ladies & Germs. The rationale behind secrecy surrounding what dead soldiers returned and when. In WW2, which is universally accepted as a 'just' war, if such a thing exists and Vietnam, which was a deliberately constructed conflict with no justification whatsoever. Same as Iraq in fact. A conjured up initiative event, then shouts of "Save the poor peasants", followed immediately by coffins returning draped in stars & stripes.

[JW Frogen]

Removing a tyrant that had been at war almost half his time in power, constantly destabilized the region, violated his 1991 cease fire, over 12 UN resolutions, even his final chance, one that at his own trail called Kuwait dogs and threatened to invade them again, one the Kay Report (the only report based on the post Saddam removal evidence) stated was determined to reconstitute his WMD programs, a tyrant that committed genocide and replacing it with a democracy is about as just as any war can be.

Still, just or not, war is not a game, once one is committed to, it is not a good idea for a nation to loose one, the consequences always are greater than the particular war itself.

The Left chanted defeat with little concern for what Iraqis wanted, their egos and personal sense of peace being more important, but fortunately Bush was made from stronger metal and now Iraqi has a real possibility of peace and freedom.

[Postul8]

Hearts and Flowers...............won't someone play me Hearts and Flowers?

[mantra.]

No the problem was they believed the relentless press examination of the deaths without putting it into historical or strategic context (this war having one of the lowest death rates for a war of this duration ever) was sapping the political support needed in order to buy the time turn the war around, a war which most of the press, wrongly, chanted could not be turned around.

The Vietnam and Iraq Wars were unnecessary. They were ideological wars and we didn't go in to defend anyone apart from the perceived financial stability of an "economy". The Iraq war might have had the lowest death rates for a war of that duration - but they were unnecessary deaths. We killed off the Iraqis far quicker than Saddam did.