"The images that moved them most" (Iraq War)

<p>56 photos on a "<em>Decade of War in Iraq</em>" with comments of the photographers :<a href="/bboard/"> </a><a href="http://lightbox.time.com/2013/03/18/a-decade-of-war-in-iraq-the-images-that-moved-them-most/#1">the images that moved them most.</a></p>

 

<p>This narrative by Bobby Ghosh effectively addresses one of the most frequent questions people have about why, and how, reporters and photojournalists do their jobs in difficult situations:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...I found myself putting aside my notebook to help dig survivors and bodies from the rubble. Out of the corner of my eye, I could see Kate, standing perfectly still in the swirling chaos, her eye never moving from the viewfinder, capturing the moment. I have no idea how she kept her senses: I found myself frequently crying or vomiting. Afterward, she told me she was able to fight back any emotion precisely <em>because</em> her eye was glued to the viewfinder: the camera allowed her a sense of distance from everything around her."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think we consider that news is now delivered in sound-bites of a few seconds of video, but these photos from reputable photo-journalists show that a still photograph provides a message that resonates. I still don't understand the mindset of someone who puts themselves in harms way in this manner, but we are better informed as a result.</p>

<p>David, I also shows clearly the added value of the testimony of the photographers involved. Context and opinions of the photographer does make a difference. It increased in some cases the emotion of the viewer, but it always improves the meaning of the images.</p>

<p>That's true, Anders. Which also raises the question of whether a photograph stands on its own without context, especially when its used as an adjunct to journalism. When I look at some of those photos there's a lot of different stories that could come from them, but without a sense of why the photographer thought it was important I will make up my own story.</p>

<p>I couldn't help but notice how much war coverage has changed since WW2. In these photographs American soldiers are pictured as defeated, dazed, crying or worse, partly responsible for atrocities. Was there not one moment of victory, heroism and joy in defeating the throat-slithers? Where are the pictures from the Battle of Fallujah, the largest US military engagement since Hue. There were 50,000 homes in Fallujah and the Marines fought and cleared everyone of them. Defeat in Fallujah broke the back of insurgency and they were never able to hold a large city again. No pictures? Where was this brave phot journalist then?</p>

<p>Yes, those are "moving" images. But after a couple of decades, will there be an indelible one (or two) among them that can be distinctly associated with the Iraq war? Unlikely, there won't be any that is even close to these:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc</p>

<p>There are, however, images that will be associated with the Iraq war for the ages, the world over. And they were not taken by professional photographers or journalists.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse</p>

<p>Brian M<br /> I think your basic premise is simply wrong. There are plenty of photographs from WWII of soldiers dazed, dead, or otherwise less than "heroic." Ditto in spades for Vietnam and Korea.</p>

<p>I think the best conflict photography has always focused on the individual costs of war as well as its triumphs.<br /> And what about the "Mission Accomplished" picture? That only became ironic in the aftermath, you know.</p>

<p>I think there is a difference between World War II war photography and, say, Vietnam or Iraq II war photography. It is not a simple difference as the later war photography is a development from the earlier style. But the essential difference is that in World War II pretty much the whole US population supported the war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But later wars such as Vietnam, Iraq I & II and Afghanistan commanded much less popular support. The same pattern of public support is also true in the UK and for the same reasons. Many of the later wars were seen as having dubious intelligence basis and legality, vague aims and vaguer exit strategies. They are also often seen as unwinnable assymetric wars where the civil populations are often indistinguishable from hostile combatants and superior weaponry doesn't guarantee victory. So the war photographer tends to pick up on those prevailing doubts and reflect them in their photographs. The result is a sense of, at best, ambivalence about the recent wars which just isn't present in the photos from WWII. </p>

<p>I'm afraid I agree with Robert about the most enduring photos from the Iraq wars.</p>

<p>So the popularity of the war determines what pictures we are to see. Reporters are supposed to show what is happening and not push an agenda. You take one look at that collection and you have no doubt where that photographer is coming from.</p>

<p>JDM- yes, I have seen those pictures too but I am talking balance here. Here it is the biggest battle Marines were engaged in in 40 years, and winning it. I am asking where are those pictures? Could it be that showing Marines winning battles simply goes against the narrative they are pushing? On the other hand, we couldn't get enough of the "Mission Accomplished" picture especially when juxtaposed against the picture of a soldier with missing limbs.<br>

<br>

Politics aside, we never had a "war photographer" in any of the recent wars. Watch any WW2 footage and you are with soldier who is actually fighting and dying. Films from the Eastern Front or fall of Berlin are particularly captivating. All you are getting these days are pictures snapped around the camp. </p>

<p>So the popularity of a war determines what pictures we are to see. Reporters are supposed to show what is happening and not push an agenda. You take one look at that collection and you have no doubt where that photographer is coming from.<br>

JDM- yes, I have seen those pictures too but I am talking balance here. Here it is the biggest battle Marines were engaged in in 40 years, and winning it. I am asking where are those pictures? Could it be that showing Marines winning battles simply goes against the narrative they are pushing? On the other hand, we couldn't get enough of the "Mission Accomplished" picture especially when juxtaposed against the picture of a soldier with missing limbs.<br /><br />Politics aside, we never had a "war photographer" in any of the recent wars. Watch any WW2 footage and you are with soldier who is actually fighting and dying. Films from the Eastern Front or fall of Berlin are particularly captivating. All you are getting these days are pictures snapped around the camp.</p>

<p>So the popularity of the war determines what pictures we are to see. Reporters are supposed to show what is happening and not push an agenda. You take one look at that collection and you have no doubt where that photographer is coming from.</p>

<p>JDM- yes, I have seen those pictures too but I am talking balance here. Here it is the biggest battle Marines were engaged in in 40 years, and winning it. I am asking where are those pictures? Could it be that showing Marines winning battles simply goes against the narrative they are pushing? On the other hand, we couldn't get enough of the "Mission Accomplished" picture especially when juxtaposed against the picture of a soldier with missing limbs.<br>

<br>

Politics aside, we never had a "war photographer" in any of the recent wars. Watch any WW2 footage and you are with soldier who is actually fighting and dying. Films from the Eastern Front or fall of Berlin are particularly captivating. All you are getting these days are pictures snapped around the camp. </p>

<p>You felt your answer was so nice, you posted it thrice? ;)</p>

<p>Seriously, given our current server difficulties, it is well to be patient before hitting the button multiple times. </p>

<p>I think you are seeing only what you allow yourself to see, both past and present. Your script is set and you allow no fact to alter its trajectory.</p>

<p>"You felt your answer was so nice, you posted it thrice? "<br>

Just tying to keep forum's traffic up. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So the popuklarity of the war determines what pictures we see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Not quite :-). The first thing which determines which pictures we see is just events. From all the things happening the photographers make a selection, then the editors make a further selection. Then the public get to see that selection. From this process everyone then forms views of what is important and significant about a war. This is partly a feedback process as editors have both to pick their photos and maintain a readership. <br /> In the case of the Iraq war what seems to have struck everyone most forcibly (photographers, editors and public) is the chaos and violence unleashed on the Iraqi people, both from outside and from within, as a result of the war. You can see that in the selection of photos above. I watched a TV programme the other day marking the 10th anniversary of the invasion. It was a day when several bombs went off. An Iraqi woman said, 'It is a little better now than it was under Saddam, but we had hoped for more.'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where are the pictures from the Battle of Fallujah, the largest US military engagement since Hue. There were 50,000 homes in Fallujah and the Marines fought and cleared everyone of them. Defeat in Fallujah broke the back of insurgency and they were never able to hold a large city again. No pictures?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uhhhh... google "Marlboro men kick butt in Fallujah" and see what comes up. As a photographer I don't understand how you missed one of the most memorable stories of the war. You really can't blame the poor guys in a war zone clutching nothing but a DSLR for you missing a story that was covered on every major US news outlet. Fallujah had the image I remember most from the war. It was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the OP. Also the massed big armies part of the Iraq war was relatively short. A lot of time was spent driving around waiting for an IED to blow you up. If you looked at how most soldiers died in the later part of that conflict I believe it was mostly IEDs and suicides. It wasn't during D Day and Battle of the Bulge scenarios. Which explains the absence of those kinds of images.</p>

<p>Anyway I think videos of American helicopters gunning down camera men and war criminals taking point and shoot pictures of their abuses kind of overshadowed a bunch of other images taken during the illegal war.</p>

<p>As for shooting cameramen, that was apparently well enough known to prompt questions of<br>

"Is that a rocket launcher?" <br>

by re-enactors when I carried my massive new 100-400mm lens to a 18th century event.</p>

 

<p>But Gitmo has been closed for 4 years. Wait!</p>