Death of a Marine — A photographer’s journal

The photo of a fallen soldier

The death of Marine Joshua Bernard, captured in a controversial photo, reminds us of the war that won't end

BY MICHAEL WINSHIP

The AP photo referenced in this story can be viewed as part of this gallery,which begins with a warning about its content. Salon has elected not to publish the photo itself.

AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

In this Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009 file photo, U.S. Marine Lt. Jake Godby pays his respects to Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard during a memorial service at a forward operating base with Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, in Now Zad in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

There was a certain ironic and painful symmetry at work last month. As one iconic image of war was called into doubt, another was being created, a new photograph of combat's grim reality that already has generated controversy and anger. When it was first published in 1936, during the Spanish Civil War, Robert Capa's photo was captioned "Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death." Better known today as "The Falling Soldier," the picture purportedly captures the gunning down of a Republican anarchist named Federico Borrell Garcia who was fighting against the forces of Gen. Francisco Franco. Dressed in what look like civilian clothes, wearing a cartridge belt, he is thrown backward in an almost balletic swoon, his rifle falling from his right hand.

The picture quickly came to symbolize the merciless and random snuffing out of life in wartime -- that murder committed in the name of God or country can strike unexpectedly, from a distance, like lightning from a cloudless sky.

Last month, the veracity of Capa's most famous picture was cast in doubt when José Manuel Susperregui, a Spanish academic, published a book in which he alleges that the photo was not taken where Capa claimed, but 35 miles away at a location where no fighting had yet taken place; that the picture was posed, a fake. Others disagree, but his evidence is compelling.

Just as that controversy was being reported in the news, in Afghanistan another man lay dying, another victim of war. His photo created a sensation, too. But no one is questioning its veracity. In this case, the image is all too real.

During an ambush on Aug. 14, Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan's Helmand province, where the Marines have been engaged in a major offensive, fighting to take territory back from the Taliban. Associated Press photojournalist Julie Jacobson took a picture of comrades trying to save his life. But it was too late.

Over the objections of Bernard's family and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the AP published the photo as part of a series of articles and photographs about Bernard's platoon. Gates protested to AP that the wire service's "lack of compassion and common sense ... is appalling." AP replied that it had made a tough decision to "make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it."

At "Bill Moyers Journal," our production team wrestled with the dilemma over whether to show the photo on this week's PBS broadcast. We finally decided to do so, but carefully placed it within the context of other pictures AP's Jacobson took earlier that day of Lance Cpl. Bernard and his fellow Marines on patrol. However your own conscience comes down on this issue, there can be no denying the story the photo tells. It forces us to confront through a young man's violent death the ugly, bloody reality of a war that America has been fighting longer than we fought in the First and Second World Wars combined. August was the deadliest month for our troops in Afghanistan since we first invaded the country shortly after 9/11. It has been a gruesome summer -- 51 Americans died in August; 45 in July. And to what end? The Taliban is resurgent. Almost two-thirds of the country is deemed too dangerous for aid agencies to deliver much-needed help. Civilian casualties this year have reached more than a thousand, including the victims of suicide bombings and so-called collateral damage from American airstrikes. The credibility of recent so-called free elections has been shattered with charges of widespread fraud and corruption.

As the Economist magazine noted last month, resentment against the Karzai government, NATO forces and Westerners in general is growing. "It seems clear," the magazine reported, "that the international effort to bring stability to Afghanistan, in which a strong somewhat liberal and democratic state can take root, is failing." And yet, consider this open letter to President Obama from some of the very same neocons who used falsehoods, propaganda and manipulation to throw us into Iraq -- arguing for invasion of that country even before the 9/11 attacks occurred. "We remain convinced that the fight against the Taliban is winnable," they write, "and it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to win it."

The letter lands just as several European countries have called for a conference to assess the current situation and the commander of our forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, delivers a review to the White House, a report many believe sets the stage for an even greater expansion of the war. But on Monday, the McClatchy news service reported that some top Pentagon officials worry that without a clear definition of our mission there, further escalation may be useless. According to the article, "Some even fear that deploying more U.S. troops, especially in the wake of a U.S. airstrike last week that killed and wounded scores of Afghan civilians, would convince more Afghans that the Americans are occupiers rather than allies and relieve the pressure on the Afghan government to improve its own security forces."

One of that story's reporters, McClatchy's chief Pentagon correspondent Nancy Youssef, recently returned from Afghanistan and was interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers for this week's "Journal." Youssef said, "I can't tell you how many Afghans said to me, 'I don't want the Americans. I don't want the Taliban. I just want to be left alone.'" Nonetheless, "Either the United States commits to this and really commits to it, or it walks away.  But this middle ground of sort of holding on isn't going to work anymore ... We're at least coming to that decision point ... And to me, that's good news, because at least it gives everybody involved some sense of where this is going.  I think that's something worth looking forward to. Because what's been going on up until now is unacceptable."

What no one understands for sure yet, she said, is President Obama's position: "That's the big mystery in Washington ... Because it will ultimately be his decision." We should have a better idea of where he stands on Sept. 24, when the White House is supposed to present a list of metrics by which progress in Afghanistan will be measured, a condition that was set by Congress for the approval of further war funding. (Note — this article was published in September 2008. President Obama’s position is now known.)

In addition to the theories of generals and diplomats, the president and Congress may wish to pay careful attention to the words of an Afghan villager named Ghafoor. He told a correspondent for the Economist, "We need security. But the Americans are just making trouble for us. They cannot bring peace, not if they stay for 50 years."

Not a pretty picture.

Go here and see the photo-essay.

Comments

[Tyler]

Ever since 1991 when the Pentagon started hiding the savage nature of war by blocking photos of dead soldiers, the American public has been ignorant of what happens. The narrator of the video even said that when she was taking the pictures, she knew that she probably wouldn't be able to show them. Freedom of the press? Where?

The American people should have the right to see what exactly they are paying, voting and lobbying for when they support a war. To not allow this, is to withhold information from someone and still expect them to either support or reject an idea.

As critical thinkers we are told to examine a situation and look at both sides of an issue. With war, how can we be critical thinkers when we cannot even get a glimpse of what is really happening?

[David Cook]

Tyler is right when he says that as critical thinkers we should be able to examine the situation and take a look at both sides. War is a brutal and violent thing, we should be able to see the photos of what our soldiers have to experience as an everyday occurrence. I honestly have to question if these photos wold do any good. The American public as a whole seems fine and complacently blissful with the level of information they receive from our media. We saw today just how horrible the media can be about reporting the truth.

[JohnEvans]

I have to most adamantly disagree with Tyler. To publish pictures of honored dead especially without the consent of the family is atrocious. The AP is abusing this soldiers sacrifice of his life for their own personal gain. This really aggravates me. We don't even do this to criminals in this country. By Tyler's definition of "freedom of the press" a reporter could take a picture of me through my windows and publish it with out my consent. These people may be soldiers but first are foremost they are people and have a right of privacy which is left in the hands of their family after there death. How disrespectful has our nation become? You don't need to see a corpse to know what is really happening

[Brandon]

I do not think it is okay for the military to try and cover up what really happens in war. They shouldn't have a problem with a photo being published that shows the true side of war. Reporters and photographers should try and report the true side no matter what. They shouldn't fall inline with what the military says. I believe us Americans have a false since of what happens in war because of the media. The only way we could possibly see what really goes on in war is through the media, and it is distorted. When John says you don't need to see a corpse to know what is really happening is true. We also do not need to see a distorted and scripted view of what isn't happening.

[cdavis17]

I don't really know where to side with this story. I think that America should know the severity of war and things that are actually happening, but I think that they should only release pictures that the families approve of, or kind of blur the faces of the individual. I think that it is sad to see the men dying, but it happens in war.

[mgn]

All pictures of war should be shown that we can see how horrendous it is. We as American citizens who have never been to war should not be blinded by the truth because the media feels it needs to protect us from such images. By being left in the shadows of censors we remain ignorant to the world outside our borders.
I also don’t understand how in our society we live off the excitement of blood and gorge from the realm of Hollywood’s cameras. Hollywood filmmakers’ blockbuster hits usually involve profuse amounts of violence yet no one stops them from being seen.

[Torey]

I would have to say that the obsession with war that began with Korea may be a result of the limited perception that the American public has when it comes to what horrors await the troops. Photos that show the actual nature of what we ask of the men in our military can be very valuable proponents in bringing troops home.

[Tyler]

John--

To be such an adamant supporter of someone performing the duties of their government, even down to excusing the commandments of almighty God...why pretend that this is any different?

Your comparison of someone taking a picture of you in your own house is no no way comparable to taking the picture of a soldier who has signed a contract to serve the military. These pictures should be taken, and they should be shown to everyone. And the pictures are what should aggravate you, not the fact that they took them. The pictures are in no way harmful. The soldiers are killed protecting their country and showing the American public the job they did and how their lives ended is nothing but helpful.

Bottom line: We must know what we do with our votes and money...especially when it directly impacts the lives of the children of our fellow Americans.

[quicktype89]

Ok.... So I sorta agree with John, definitely with cdavis, mgn, and Torey. I firmly believe that the pictures that our press captures of the atrocities of war should be published for public knowledge. We are a visually based and influenced society so pictures and videos of reality are what we are going to relate to. Even the most gruesome of photos should be made available, but I do somewhat agree with John when he says that pictures of soldiers are encroaching on their privacy. I think cdavis's comment that with the consent of families the photos can be shown, or the faces blurred, but the thing that would fix this issue is knowing if the soldiers have to sign some kind of privacy in photos thing or something. If they signed saying that photos of war taken by the press were free to the press, well then this would be a non issue.
Also David, Don't give up on society. Independent news media, like NPR, exist to educate those who hunger for more-like us-so that we may go out and tell our friends and educate those around us. That is our purpose as college students, to be educated so that we can spread our education through our jobs, relationships, and faith.

[quicktype89]

This is a video I found of The Daily Show De-bunking mainstream news media. Pay close attention to the 24 hour networks. Most of these networks get called out for having a bias and consisting mostly of opinion programing rather than FACTS. The thing we need to see. Plus it's just hilarious.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118201/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive-the-fourth-estate#s-p5-sr-i1

[Morgan]

I think that they should release photos of war. Pictures are taken to be seen and maybe Americans will realize the severity of the war. Plus photographers put themselves in danger to take these pictures and to not show them would just be wrong.

[Julie Jackson]

I do think the same that the pictures must be proved. Although, I think it is good for everyone to see the effects of war. The news sometimes makes it look like the soldiers are over there picking flowers. There are people dying, losing legs, going blind, and having to kill innocent people. I know for a fact I did not think about how the war was so bad before I started this class. That is because I saw the truth; the things that are not shown on normal television. I hate having to see it, but it is something that must be seen.

[Larz]

I agree, citizens really should see all these pictures from war. It is important for us to know what is going on and what our fellow citizens are going through, because they are doing it for us. The media is just going to show and tell us what they want us to hear or think, so it is important for us to see these pictures.

[Sarah Thullbery]

I think that it is important for us to see images of what war is really like because it brings us closer to an understanding of what our soldiers are going through. However, I, like John, think that the press definitely needs permission from the family of the deceased before publicly using their picture.