The New Republic Licks Judy Miller's Boots?

If I've discovered anything from running this site, it's that photo analysis is not to be taken lightly.  (The other thing I've learned is that there is never a shortage of people who know an awful lot more about a picture than you do.)

That said, I wonder what assistance we could provide to to Franklin Foer (blogging for The New Republic's "The Plank") to help appreciate these lessons.  The following is what Mr. Foer wrote on Monday accompanying the picture above.  (For the sake of full disclosure, I increased it's size, and brightened it up.)

Judy Miller has always been known as a passionate reporter. And, at times, she has tended to forget that The New York Times pays her to be an observer of events, not a participant in them. Many months after I wrote a profile of Miller in New York magazine, a source sent me this shot of her in the Iraqi desert. There's nothing damning per se about Miller dressing in uniform. But it does seem to perfectly capture the essence of her subject-object confusion. (Incidentally, the uniform, I'm told, belonged to Chief Warrant Officer Richard Gonzalez. Miller famously pinned a medal on Gonzalez at a Baghdad promotion ceremony.)

Now, I would like to share with you what BAGreader Lucian K. Truscott wrote to Mr. Foer in response.

(You should know that I'm happy to provide the reply for two reasons.  First, Lucian's insight into the photo is exactly what feeds The BAG.  Second, I particularly empathize with the fact that, regardless how much thought and effort people like Mr. Truscott put into these types of correspondence, it's almost a foregone conclusion that nothing will be coming back.)

LUCIAN'S EMAIL TO MR. FOER:

I'm not a fan of Judy Miller and think that the trust that she and the New York Times both put in leaks by the likes of Chalabi, Libby, Rove and the rest of the Boy Warriors was unfounded, uninformed, and downright stupid. But as one who spent over a month with the 101st in NW Iraq back in the fall-winter of 2003, I would ask you to have another look the photo you posted:

1. Those do not look like desert camouflage BDU trousers to me. They are too light in color, I don't see any cargo pockets, and they are way too short for a soldier to "blouse" above the tops of his boots.

2. The angle isn't right, and there is not enough detail to identify her boots as military-issue. I wore tan hiking boots with a sturdy, lugged sole in Iraq that could be mistaken for military issue in a photo such as this one.

3. If the point you're trying to make is that Judy Miller wore the Battle Dress Uniform while she was reporting from Iraq, that's not a kevlar helmet on her head, and she is not holding a weapon. The absence of both helmet and weapon would make her, in military terms, "out of proper uniform" in combat.

4. One easily identifable thing in your photo is the surrounding landscape. Please note the ground. That isn't desert "sand." It is plain old Iraqi desert. The top layer is the consistency of fine body or face powder. It gets through, under, and inside everything, from clothing to ears, eyes, and other body orfices. It's a form of nasty "dust" I've found nowhere else, not even in Afghanistan. It's everywhere. You can't get away from it. You can never really cleanse yourself of the stuff, especially when there are very, very few showers around, and even fewer hot showers, so it's always all over your clothes, your stuff, you body, your sleeping bag...everything. It gets in the water the instant you unscrew a bottle of water. It clouds your glasses the instant after you wipe them clean. Later, after Miller left Iraq, the military and the CPA made a lame attempt to "tame" the desert by spreading a thick layer of gravel on top of things wherever they went, which was pure folly, since the Iraqi desert immediately went about the business of replenishing itself with wind, which easily and quickly covered the goddamned gravel with the same ultra-fine crap that lay under it. Your photo is not dated, but in Iraq, there are really only two seasons -- summer and winter -- and two temperatures -- ungodly hot and ungodly cold -- and only one level of physical comfort -- complete, total, utter misery. Whatever Judy Miller is wearing in your photo, it didn't provide any protection from the the land or the elements, and I can assure you from experience that she was every bit as miserable as the soldier standing next to her.

5. The other easily identifable thing is the Humvee she's standing next to. Please note the canvas roof, canvas driver's door, and complete lack of doors and roof of any kind "protecting" the rear seats. I rode in similar unarmored Humvees with the 101st -- most of which had between 250,000 and 300,000 miles on them. If she was riding in that vehicle -- the situation depicted in the photo indicates she probably was -- I can tell you from experience that she was unprotected from small-arms fire, mortar fire, RPG's, IED's of any size or sophistication, indeed, from any weapon being used against American forces then or now. Hell, she was even unprotected from somebody throwing rocks. I don't care what she was wearing -- BDU's, Prada capri pants, combat boots or Manolo Blahnik desert "loungers" -- riding around in one of those damn things wasn't any fun at all.

You seem to have posted this photo seems to imply guilt by association -- in the case of Judy Miller reporting from Iraq, her form followed fashion. I hope that you would admit that your photo also implies that anyone who rode around in that unarmored, canvas-clad Humvee wearing desert-colored boots, thin clothing and a baseball cap was either crazy, courageous, or both. To admit that in the case of Judy Miller there might be such a thing as guilt by an emotional association with others in the face of danger would be just a little too charitable, huh?

Have another look at your photo and give it some thought, Franklin. I'll be real interested in your further thoughts on what combat fashion means in the case of Judy Miller.

END OF EMAIL [with addtional comment]

To this msg to Mr. Foer, I would add this "photo analysis" I heard today from a friend in the Army currently serving in Iraq:

"The Soldier in the photo appears to be wearing on his upper body a bulky garment with a high collar, probably an Interceptor vest capable of stopping an AK-47 round, whereas Ms. Miller's loose fitting blouse indicates that she is not.

Not a fan of Ms. Miller either, as she was a willing participant in the spin that got us where we are, though certainly not to the extent that New Republic was. Wonder if Mr. Foer would volunteer for an assignment out here these days?"

(image: unattributed source.  "Judy Miller Wears Combat Boots." The Plank.  10.24.05.  Note: photo also obtained independently by The Huffington Post -- no link information available.)
 

Comments

[dus7]

Fairness and accuracy is mandatory; opinion must be identified as such (which it properly is on this site). Judy does not appear to be wearing a uniform - compare pantlegs, for instance, and no insignia is visible in this shot. That she must have suffered in the climate and conditions that spare no-one does speak in her favor. The objection I have, (to Judy's work there, not the photo), would be her participating in ceremonies (or witnessing 'interrogations' as reported elsewhere). Reporters observe and investigate - they do not participate (or throw their weight around, make demands, and play sex-tinged spy games). Add erroneous reporting, and the person has wandered far afield from journalism and deserves no respect.

[lemondloulou54]

Judy, Judy, Judy. She's the side show, fellas. Yes, she was used by the Bushies and yes, she wasn't smart enough to realize she was being used. But she's not the first journalist to be used by the power elite. Her problem is that she wants to be part of the power elite. The misogynism that crippled Judy in her shoddy reporting is now tearing her apart in public.

I give Judy a lot of credit for her work in the Middle East before Shock and Awe. There aren't too many people who have what it takes to report on the place, war after war. At least give her book "God has Ninety-Nine Names" a flip. She knows more about the Middle East than the whole Bush administration rolled into one.

Remember, Tom Friedman was just as much of a cheerleader for TWOT as Judy, and his career isn't being destroyed. Why is that? True, Friedman is a columnist spouting opinion, and Judy's work is supposed to be "objective." But both journalists told us that we HAD to invade Iraq. . .

Sometimes I can picture Rove gleefully rubbing his hands together when he hears or reads that the NY Times is being discredited. Heck, he already took down CBS News. NPR will eventually be eviscerated. Why not the paper of record too?

Pretty soon we'll only have Fox News to interpret the world for us. And that will be a pretty limited world view, won't it?

[Marysz]

We're looking at two people in two different worlds. The soldier on the right is in the "real" world. He's got on protective gear and he's wary and observant. He knows he's surrounded by danger. And then there's the incongruous Judy. What world is she in? She's wearing an oversized man's military jacket, which belongs to Gonzalez. Isn't this like high school, where girls wear their boyfriends' letter sweaters or varsity jackets when they're going steady? There's an adolescent girlishness to Judy. It's so cool being a reporter . . . you get to meet lots of cute guys. And wear cool clothes, too! Judy's looking down, maybe taking some of her now notoriously vague notes. Whatever she's doing, the soldier isn't interested. He's looking in the other direction, away from her. He probably thinks she's a pain in the ass.

As for her pants, isn't a kind of faux-military clothing in style right now? Judy could have bought them at Bloomingdales or Saks. The same goes for her shoes—combat boots via Madison Ave. It's theatrical—as if going to Iraq is a kind of costume party and you buy stuff to play the part. To paraphrase Lucian, she's more crazy than courageous and a fashion victim to boot. And remember, for Judy, physical discomfort has a kind of performativity. Look at her time in jail, while the country looked on, Judy sleeping on that thin pallet . . . Judy looking out at the world through the tiny window in her barren cell. Her greatest role. That's why she's not wearing body armor because, after all, they aren't real bullets. Not where she is, off in Judy's World.

[erthsister]

Great comments, here. I can add only a few, some of which come from experience in the Arizona desert.

My first thought was only that in the desert sun, anything darker than pale soaks up heat excruciatingly. Even bare skin in the sun can get crisped pretty fast. One can get burned through glass or light clothing. So wearing a heavier but lighter colored _anything_ to shield ones skin is advisable. Although the oversized jacket does look rather high-school boyfriendish. (Aww, isn't she cute?) Not to mention the stylish pants & boots.

The dark ball cap caught my eye next. Isn't that thing too hot? Not only would it catch the eye from a *distance*, but wait, it gives absolutely no protection to side sun, bullets, mortor rounds or even rocks, as one person pointed out. Even when one visits a construction site, safety regulations require a hard hat. So why is Judy in a war zone as if she were kicking around town on a Saturday? Maybe this is her work gear? Maybe the jacket does camo her from a distance.

Finally, the difference in postures is striking, as others have also pointed out. The soldier is alert and wary. Judy has her head in the notebook, trustingly facing almost into the vehicle. Who is she trusting to protect her butt?

Of course, this image captures one slice of time that may be different from other slices of time. And maybe Judy puts on her apparent indifference to danger as her armor against fate and chance. I'm gathering an impression of someone who is willing to play the odds to the edge. So although I don't know, it feels right to say that she's bluffed fate so many times that it's part of her defence. Maybe because she's found that when you run straight at the odds, they part and let you through? A cosmic game of chicken?

[readytoblowagasket]

Before I read the background commentary about this photo, I noticed Judy Miller's feminized desert-war "outfit." I have no combat experience whatsoever, so I can't identify, let alone describe, what her battle-ready uniform should look like instead. I do know, however, what a pair of capris and matching booties look like from afar. I also know that wearing a blue baseball cap in a desert setting in daytime is equivalent to wearing a placard that says "Shoot me in the head."

Finally, I know that Judy's jacket is "borrowed" (obviously) and that it is a man's (it's too big). Judy could have borrowed a woman's jacket that might have fit her better — women soldiers are in Iraq, as we know, doing a bang-up job — but she didn't. Judy's jacket carries a message, her version of the J. Crew-catalog's updated concept of the "boyfriend sweater," a man's sweater marketed to women with an accompanying fantasy of "borrowing" it to wear at brunch the morning after. What makes the J. Crew boyfriend sweater "feminine" is that it advertizes that you have had sex, and potentially, with whom. Lucky for Judy that the military puts surnames and other identifying markers on their jackets. Maybe that's what Foer meant when he wrote, "Judy Miller has always been known as a passionate reporter"?

[George Myers, Jr.]

Desert Storm: famous photographer (Hanson) invents a cable lift, nested square tubular lift for TV cameras, goes up over the Embassy compound in Baghdad, some said the only photos we would have, except for jets taking off for sorties from Saudi Arabia. He demoed it for my company in archaeology.

Today: some embedded photographers and others like Judy Miller.

A drafted service: too risky with cameras everywhere.

[MonsieurGonzo]

Cause célèbre

i'm always amazed when i see the weather report on local or even national (ie., 'The Weather Channel') American EmpTeeVee, how "the weather" STOPS at the Canadian and Mexican borders : i mean, they have to consciously scrub satellite images to remove, what ?

...Un-American weather ?

{grin} but just as strange, really ~ is how the WeatherPerson stands in front of the weather map image as if, you know : somehow their presence is part of the weather report story.

personally, i still cringe when i see journalists interviewing other journalists : their conceit implicit is that being "literate" communicators somehow elevates them to the station of experts in such things as Weapons of Mass Destruction or, women's medicine; eg.

here we see Not News... the photo-journalist is documenting the presence of a print-journalist in some deserted, desert place; where nothing is happening, really. Let's talk about her clothes, or the weather, or something.

Q: How did you see your role when you were a wire service reporter?

Helen Thomas: Straight reporting. Just the facts, ma'am. I wrote dull copy because I was afraid even a verb would sound pejorative or judgmental. But now I go for broke. I have to be curbed. I can honestly say I was never accused of slant in my copy. But I tell everyone--this is my cliche--that I never bowed out of the human race since the moment I was born. I permitted myself to think, to care, to believe. But I was not paid for that. At the wire service, you had to have straight factual reporting and I did it for fifty-seven years.

[ummabdulla]

I think Marysz pretty much nailed it.

Do we know when this picture was taken? A lot of the comments assume that it was hot, and it's true that when it's hot in Iraq, it's very hot - but it's not always hot. And we don't actually know if she was in a dangerous situation, do we?

[Lucian K. Truscott IV]

In answer to the question above, we don't know exactly when the photo was taken, but presumably it was when she was with the team trying vainly to find WMD back in 2003, since I don't believe she ever returned as a reporter to Iraq.

As for a dangerous situation: when I was there in late 2003 -- compared to today, Baghdad and Mosul and surrounding areas were vacation zones -- the only time you were in any real danger was when you were riding around in one of those damn Humvees. I went on foot patrols through Sadr City, Mosul, Tall Afar, Rabihya, and several other towns in North West Iraq, and we were never in any danger. In fact, the 101st didn't lose a single soldier on foot patrols. All KIAs and WIAs were in helicopters or convoys. So was she in a "dangerous situation," according to Iraq the way I knew it back then? Not until they got into that Humvee and drove away, she wasn't.

Lucian

[PTate in Mn]

Judith Miller is a narcissist and possibly one of those dangerous sociopaths that are smart enough to stay out of jail and rise in organizations because they manipulate everyone. You know them by the havoc they leave in their wake.

So, my take, when I saw this picture--before I knew it was JM being a passionate journalist--was that a fashionista had dropped by to see the local color. The hat, the shoes, the baggy jacket: She's just so stylish. This isn't army issue. It has always been all about her.

[readytoblowagasket]

"here we see Not News": That's right, MG.

I'd meant to point out earlier that the soldier is NOT wary and alert, as some have described. He is in fact nearly in repose: his legs are crossed, his weight is on one leg more than the other, he's slouching, leaning against the Humvee, his center of gravity is basically his ass, and he's holding a large bottle of water in his right hand while his left hand hangs slack. He looks bored out of his mind. That's because NOTHING IS HAPPENING HERE. Judy is not really in danger; Judy is not really brave. What this photograph does document is Judy in the act of inventing a story that doesn't exist. We see a fiction writer at work. Not since Harriet Beecher Stowe has a woman writer been credited for sending America to war. No, I'm not going to give Judy credit for her nonfiction "work," but I am impressed as hell with her ability to write fiction. Her pen (and notebooks) launched the deaths of 2,000 Americans (and counting) and untold numbers of Iraqis, and seriously undermined both the NYT and the First Amendment. All that and cute little boots too! Judy's thinking about how she looks in Iraq, while the soldier shouldn't even be there in the first place. Maybe that's what the photographer saw when he photographed the inappropriately dressed, self-important "journalist" talking to the bored soldier who may die there some day.

[gleex]

Wow, nice post and analysis.

Damn the desert is hot and dry, but I guess never boring - eh?

[Lucian K. Truscott IV]

I'm sure glad that "readytoblowagasket" knows so much about being in a combat zone that he, or she, is able to inform us that the photo shows..."NOTHING IS HAPPENING HERE. Judy is not really in danger; Judy is not really brave. What this photograph does document is Judy in the act of inventing a story that doesn't exist. We see a fiction writer at work."

This "analysis" seems to indicate that "readytoblowagasket" would rather have it that a reporter working in a combat zone -- any reporter, not merely Judy Miller -- would be caught by a photographer "in the act" of reporting, or inventing, or whatever, in a moment when Judy, or any other reporter for that matter, would be "really in danger" or too boot, "really brave."

I would suggest that "readytoblowagasket" run straight over to the news outlet nearest to him or her and sign up for a tour "reporting" or "inventing" a story, so that he or she could determine for himself or herself when and where he or she would most likely be taking notes, or reporting, or inventing, or whatever.

In my experience, when the soldiers I was with were relaxed enough to be crossing their legs and holding bottles of water rather than M-4's, that was when I was most likely to be taking notes, or reporting, or inventing, or whatever.

Send us an email when you get to the front and find the best place to do your note-taking or reporting or inventing or whatever, "readytoblowagasket." I, for one, will be awaiting your posts and comments with baited breath.

Lucian

[readytoblowagasket]

Lucian: I'm not criticizing ALL reporters. I'm criticizing Judy Miller, period.

Also, I would "have it" that NO war reporters are in Iraq, because if I ruled the world, there never would have been a US-sponsored war in Iraq to cover in the first place.

By "fiction," I'm referring to Judy's WMD "reporting," which turned out to be more fictional than factual, and that's not just my unsupported opinion: http://slate.msn.com/id/2086110 and elsewhere. Judy's WMD reporting should alert us to question her other work, should it not? I would hesitate to come to Judy's defense right now, if I were you. I appreciate your experience, but you do yourself a disservice to equate your experience in war zones with hers.

I was also proposing a hypothetical reason for the photographer to take this picture. After MonsieurGonzo waxed critical about the media's tendency to interview themselves, I took another look at it. I meant to give the photographer more credit than MG did. Why would the photographer take it? There is no news in it, there is nothing happening AT THAT MOMENT that's newsworthy, from an EDITORIAL standpoint (you yourself said Judy was not in danger right then). But there IS something more subtle going on.

But most of all I want to underscore the link between Judy's countless irresponsible actions and some very destructive consequences, reverberations of which were articulated yesterday in special prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald's comment that he wished he could have been finished a year ago — he specifically said "October '04" — which would mean right before the election. But Judy went to jail and stalled Fitzgerald's work (again, not just MY opinion, it's his), and Bush got reelected. We still have YEARS and many more deaths to go before this bullshit (in my opinion) ends.

All Judy feels compelled to say about her erroneous WMD reporting is that if your sources are wrong, you are wrong. Well, that's just not good enough. In my opinion.