BAGnewsNotes

4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images

Why do I think this image from Thursday's NYT is so profound?

It's because the military has been so overwhelmingly effective in muting the war, and the war photographer, that -- practically without notice -- many of our best shooters have found themselves turning, in a disproportionate way, to the technique of irony.

For example, Cristoph Bangert has been masterful in articulating the surreal nature of a long incoherent strategy in an alien land.  And now, photographer Ashley Gilbertson -- whose work I've shown and discussed a number of times at BAGnewsNotes -- is back "in country," and again "firing wit-tipped darts" attempting to wake us up.

Of course, if we weren't so anesthetized, we might actually sit forward and wonder about the outlandish contrast in this photo, or more particularly, to consider what an all-too-stealth-like picture might have to do with still one more headline confirming the latest non-development concerning Iraq's Babel-ish, seemingly permanent stalemate-for-a-government.

The agrarian scene, confounding associations of Iraq as a mostly arid, desert-like place, uses the really hilarious device of cows grazing to mirror how we in the U.S. have become so thoroughly pacified (or, dare I saw, "cowed?") by the pictorial censorship and fundamental lack of context in the war reporting as to basically reduce the whole subject -- despite the shadowy war machine still silently screaming overhead -- to the significance of, well, grazing.

White House Syndrome

[The bombings prove al-Qaida is] "the most brutal and bankrupt of movements...."

--Condoleezza Rice

"There is nothing they won't do if they think it will work in creating carnage and the political fallout that comes from that."

--Ryan Crocker

Three weeks ago, Iraqi and American military officials offered a dramatic announcement.  They reported that the two women suicide bombers who had hit separate Baghdad pet markets within half-an-hour both had Down syndrome, and had likely been recruited and detonated by al Qaeda.

I had my suspicions, but it didn't stop a wide swath of media from jumping on the story, producing headlines and visuals like these.

Once again, those nameless, faceless evil-doers the White House compulsively talks about had demonstrated what barbarians they are.  Imagine, using mentally handicapped women to kill the father of these now emotionally shattered boys, or to cause blood to flow freely in the streets, leading shell-shocked Iraqi's to simply look down and wonder why.

... If there is anything even slightly redeeming about the whole scenario, and I mean slight, it is that the American military (without the pictures this time, and with much less fanfare, as well) admitted that the Down syndrome claim was false, and that no link to al Qaeda could be demonstrated, either.

Mentally Retarded Pair Used in Bombing  (AOL)
Down’s syndrome bombers kill 91  (Times Online)
Some Witnesses Descriptions, Picture Disagree on Least One Iraqi Market Bomber (DotCommonSense)
Files for Suicide Bombers Show No Down Syndrome (NYT)

(image 1& 2: Ali Yussef, Getty Images. Baghdad.  February 1, 2008. Times Online and AOL.com)

Bush To WAPO: I'm Truman, You're ... Eating Out Of My Hand

While corporate media was being spun this week on the evils of Iran, it was also getting played on the campaign front.

This example involves a cute little post at WAPO's campaign blog, The Trail.  The entry, titled "Bush to Hillary Clinton: I'm Truman, You're Ike," featured the photo above, and opened as follows:

Karl Rove may not think much of Hillary Rodham Clinton's chances of winning the White House, but it sounds like President Bush is less sanguine. At an off-the-record lunch a week ago, Bush expressed admiration for her tenacity in the campaign. And he left some in the room with the impression that he thinks she will win the election and has been thinking about how to turn over the country to her.

Does anything smell fishy so far?

Well, here's my list:

1.  Any campaign piece that starts off with the words "Karl Rove" automatically deserves a double red flag.

2.  The Washington Post wants us to believe that Bush and Rove aren't on the same page when it comes to anything political?  ...All this time and WAPO still can't read a misdirection play?

Your Turn: Scotch The Notion

I think my brain is just a little too fuzzy right now to tease this apart.  We have one of those separation walls I was hot and bothered about a few months back.  And, we have a kid spray painting an anti-American slogan on it.

Paired with those elements, we have this caption that has a unique way of framing events in Washington.  It reads:

An Iraqi boy writes anti-US slogans on a separation wall in Baghdad. Democrats on Wednesday battled to scotch the notion that General David Petraeus's upbeat report on his troop surge strategy had punctured their drive to bring US troops home from Iraq.

(In rebuttal, by the way, check out Glen Greenwald's post yesterday which takes Beltway media to task for assuming that the Petraeus testimony was in any way effective, or had any impact at all.)

Meanwhile, how do you pair that caption with this picture, or vice versa?  If Petraeus somehow did puncture the opposition's bubble and potentially did forestalled an imposed pullback, did somebody forget to tell the kid?  Or is the picture supposed to supercede the caption, cuing that it's Petraeus's picture of things that is off the wall?

Finally (and I'm specifically thinking about how the Blackwater incident highlights the role of Western dead-enders in Iraq):  does the picture telegraph the fact we're losing some leverage in dictating our "welcome?"

(image: AFP/Ali Yussef. Baghdad.  via YahooNews)

Bush Hype And The Loss Of Sheikh

My question is, did George Bush effectively "off" an ally -- and even undermine his Anbar strategy -- for the sake of the "surge sale" and a single photo-op?

To flesh out the question, skip back to the last days of August, and the Administration's  effort to sprucing up the Iraq campaign.  Of the three platforms for judging the picture -- one military, one economic, and one political -- it was this third category most amenable to last minute window dressing.

At that point in time, the Administration, and our Ambassador Crocker, were putting effort into forcing a show of solidarity among Iraq's ruling elite.  My August 30th post focused on one such effort.  The photo op in question cast the Iraqi leaders in a bite-your-tongue display of token consensus surrounding the relatively insignificant (and still unratified) restoration of civil employment privileges of Baath party members.

Now, fast forward to George Bush's media stunt in which he had himself air-shipped into Anbar on September 3rd to boost General Petraeus' Sunni miracle.  In a dog-and-pony reprise, the Administration whisked the same characters to Fortress Patreus for a further photo op, this time with time with 43 himself.

When it came time to secure the coveted images of this meet-and-greet, however, the President -- who went half-round-the-world for a few moments of mugging (in front of the camera) -- failed to secure even one shot in Anbar with that ferried collective of Vice Presidents Abdul-Mehdi and al-Hashemi, President Talabani, Prime Minister al-Maliki, Deputy Prime Minister Salih as well as the Kurd leader Barzani.

In fact, the most "intact" shot of the group on Yahoo's newswire was probably this one, featuring Bush in a "the script says shake my hand" gesture toward Talabani; a "what am I doing here" glance from Maliki, and the distant presence of that third suit, Sunni V.P. Tariq al-Hashemi, who back in Baghdad, could barely bring himself to play along.

The reason for this crappy shot, and the fact that nobody saw it, however, was not because of Iraqi resistance (although there seems plenty of that) but because the Administration had lined up a better date for this dance.

So what we got, instead, as this article and, especially, the inset photo from Voice of America illustrates, is the visual action shifting to the right side of the room.  Taking in the whole scene, what you have are the local tribal leaders -- the current object of a U.S. love affair --flanking the President, backed up by the Condi, Crocker and Gates crew.

The money shot, however, (the one shouting loud from FOX to the NYT) is the one top-left above.  (Here's the whole spread.)  In the pic, we see Bush beaming and preening with Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, touted by the military as our #1 tribal ally among allies in the panacea of the moment, the alliance forged with Sunni mixed flavors in the region.

Given the extraordinarily high profile of the meeting, the intense rivalry of the neighborhood clans, as well as the media savvy of all types of bad boys, however, wasn't it odd Sattar wasn't a little more concerned to avoid the exposure?  (Probably not, if he was really the corrupt power player a more independent media has seen him to be, hugging the limelight as America's charismatic anti-al Qaeda poster boy of the hour.) 

As a strategic asset, however, didn't the Administration and the Sattar-fawning military have concerns about setting him up this way -- even before he had his 15 minutes at the White House?

When Sattar was murdered just nine days later, his brother and likely successor proclaimed:

“The martyrdom of Sattar will not affect this [pro-American, anti-insurgent] council because every member of this council has the same beliefs and the same motivations and this sad incident will not stop them from moving forward.... Although they killed Sattar, there are a million Sattars in Anbar.”

Interesting comment.  In spite of the fact Sattar was touted by the military as the leader among leaders in this clannish world, and a key coalescing figure of our palm-greasing operation in the region, and a man of such significance that his loss would compel the tears of key American military brass at the man's funeral, somehow this guy wasn't worth more than a photo op.

(image 1 & 3: Charles Dharapak/AP.  Sept. 3, 2007.  Al-Asad Air base in Anbar province.  Via YahooNews.  image 2: A.P. September 13, 2007.  Ramadi, Iraq.  nytimes.com.)

Jim, Bring Back The Boots

Today, with boots on the ground 6,000 miles away, the history of that struggle is still in the making.

-- Dick Cheney, September 14, 2007.  Grand Rapids, MI.

The latest legislative strategy on the part of the Dems might look like "half a loaf" to the roots, but it represents a terrific challenge to the Administration's dominance over the war narrative.  Beyond that, it offers all kinds of visual and symbolic opportunities if the Democrats were somehow savvy enough to take notice.

Up to now, the Administration has thoroughly leveraged the military in selling the war (as evidenced by yesterday's White House photo gallery, and Friday's Bush/Cheney appearance schedule closing out the Administration's latest Iraq Sell-A-Thon.)  In perhaps the defining example of this appropriation, the phrase "Support Our Troops" might as well be translated: "Support The War ... However We NeoCons Choose To Define It."

But then, enter the Webb amendment.  As a strategy, it is not lost on anybody that legislation to require time home for soldiers in an amount equal to the length of time deployed will force the White House and the military to commence a significant draw drawn in Iraq.  As significantly, however, it creates the opportunity for Democrats to simultaneously refashion and elevate their standing in relation to the (well being and viability of the) troops, patriotism and influence over war policy.

As a strategy, as mentioned above, opportunity abounds.  If implemented, however, would legislation, on its own, be enough to alter strategic political associations in people's minds?

Last January, following Jim Webb's "Democratic Response" to the President's State of the Union Message, I noted the Senator's use of a family portrait as a visual and emotive device to link the Democrats to a more sober determination of when to wage war.  In that post, I also indicated that the Dems needed to do a far better job in crafting their imagery.  To be successful in that regard, it is not only important to articulate effective visual and linguistic metaphors, but to also pound them home on a repeated basis.

At the Yearly Kos panel at the August conference, George Lakoff made an interesting observation in response to a question about why Democrats are so weak on framing.  In his response, Lakoff said one key to seeding a message is repetition, and that Dems are terrible at repetition.

As a case in point, I ask: What happened to the boots?

Certainly, many people will identify this visual from Jim Webb's Senate victory party as one of the classic shots of the Democratic mid-term triumph.

Why it is so recognizable, however, has much to do with that pair of visual lightning rods that so powerfully helped seal the election deal.  Given his credentials as a veteran, the fact he comes from a military family, and the fact those shoes (which he often wore during the campaign) were his son's combat boots from Iraq, I'm wondering where did they go?

Why did Webb drop them, for example, and switch to a much weaker symbol (of a photograph of his father serving in WWII) for the televised response to the President?  And why, in retrospect, was the use of the symbolism so transitory that Cheney, in the opening quote above, could be so free today  to claim the same imagery for patronizing still another stage-full of captive service people?

And why -- with the Democrats in possible position to crack open a bipartisan split with Bush and put themselves in much closer alignment with the troops than a President who spends almost every day scoring photo ops with the armed forces -- aren't we seeing those boots (or a like symbol) marched around by the Democrat knowing that opportunities to reprogram key associations to the the war are readily at hand?

(image 1 & 3:David Bohrer, image 2 Chris Greenberg. September 14, 2007. whitehouse.gov. image 4: Bill O'leary -- The Washington Post.  November 7, 2007.  Virginia.  Via washingtonpost.com.)

September 11, 2007

(click for full size)

Photographer Alan Chin, who was in lower Manhattan on 9/11/01 and captured the image above (among many), returned again yesterday to observe the mood around the Ground Zero site on the sixth anniversary of the WTC attack.  The following images, posted without commentary and more reminiscent of street photography than editorial or documentary photojournalism, represent Alan's personal record of the occasion.

As Alan explains:

This is my home and I grew up with the World Trade Center.  Yesterday, I heard the official ceremony on the loudspeakers, but that wasn't my priority. These pictures are as much about me as they are about the event. I have been back on previous anniversaries -- the first year, I was on assignment -- but this was the first time I felt like I really wanted to be there all day.

(Click any image for  larger size.)
1  2
3

4

5

6

7

8  9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

(All images courtesy of Alan Chin.  New York.  September 11, 2007.  Posted by permission)

Face It, Iraq Was All About 9/11

I had a little piece at C&L about three weeks ago speculating that the Democratic leadership would certainly be smart enough not to let the Administration have Petraeus testify on 9/11 and thereby exploit the fabulous opportunity to link the two together.

And what happened?

It was as simple a tactic as it was brilliant.  So, what did we get on the cover of  the NYT, WAPO and the LAT this AM?

Reading the anniversary front page, Iraq was about how we got just a little bogged down defending the terrorist attacks and trying to defeat that very stubborn al-Qaeda.  Fine points and the subtleties of scheduling aside, if people didn't associate the two before, they will much more after today, and after the Petraeus show.

Thumbs up, Karl!

(image: Barbara Davidson/Los Angeles Times.  September 3, 2007. via newseum.com)

From The "While Petraeus Testifies" Department: Been There, Done That

LBJ and General William Westmoreland in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam,
December 23, 1967.

Bush and Petraeus, et al. in Anbar Province, September 3, 2007

So much of politics is about how you use pictures.  Now, if we could only figure out how to put them together half as well as they do....

(image 1: unattributed. Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, 12/23/1967. via about.com.  image 2: Jim Watson/AFP. Pesident George W. Bush (2nd R) laughs with General David Petraeus (2nd-L), the top US commander in Iraq, and Lt General Odierno (L).Al-Asad Air Base. Anbar Province, Iraq. September 3, 2007. via YahooNews.  image 3: Jason Reed/Reuters. Al-Asad Air Base. Anbar Province, Iraq. September 3, 2007. via YahooNews.)

When You Stand On The Ground Here In Anbar

(click for full size)

Thanks for your messages.  I almost passed this up.

Besides the strange, and strangely uniform expressions (whiff of fear?), it seems like Bush/Gates/Condi must have be been pretty hot in those coats given those steamy Anbar evenings.

And yes, the best commentary on the pic were those two wonderful sentences back-to-back in the NYT write-up:

“When you stand on the ground here in Anbar and hear from the people who live here, you can see what the future of Iraq can look like,” [Bush] said, night having fallen at the base.

During his visit, Mr. Bush did not leave the base, a heavily fortified home to about 10,000 American troops about 120 miles west of Baghdad.

But in terms of the appearance of progress, which is what all this business is about, anyway (for which, someone deserves some congratulations for plunking down a real American fortress as compared to that train wreck they call the Green Zone), the real step forward from a year ago is that Administration folks have actually figured out how  to get their pictures taken on this front line of terrorism without the flak jackets. 

Now, about those heels....

(Briefly updated. 9/6/07)

(Jason Reed/Reuters.  Anbar Provence, Iraq. September 3, 2007.  via nytimes.com)