Staring Us In The Face

Jeez, a yellow "ANY."  Is this as skeptical as TIME could get? And why telescope this grim kid, looking like history, staring at us? 

I've got a few takes, then I'd like to hear yours.

First, the stare feels like TIME pawning off the responsibility and guilt for more lives sacrificed (potentially, even Philip's here) on you and me.

Second, by branding it as "THE SURGE" (as opposed to the President's proposal), TIME not only gives it legitimacy and impetus,  but the feeling of inevitability .

Lastly, what I think this cover is really getting at, but the media is simply too terrified to outright explore, is the skepticism of an angry and manipulated military.  Too bad, too, because the problem is right here staring us in the face.

(image: Yuri Kozyrev/TIME.  Cover.  January 15, 2007)

Comments

[Tomf]

Manipulation of the Troops' "message" to those at home has been one of the hallmarks of the propagandizing of this war by the administration. TIME magazine is taking their turn at it in this cover, using what is essentially a Norman Rockwell characature, depersonalized by the black and white presentation, as their prop for their "the troops think what we're reporting on now" message. In this campaign the soldier is nearer a puppet than pawn, in that their speech is taken and replaced with that of whomever is working the scene.

[Carl Manaster]

Does the circular frame represent a gunsight? It sort of looks that way to me (although I'd expect something in the way of crosshairs to emphasize that point). If so, it's a particularly strong message - that the surge escalation is simply sending more boys (and girls) over there to die.

[donna]

"Does sending more troops to Iraq make any sense?"

No.

This has been "simple answers to simple questions"....

No more blood for oil, please.

[PTate in MN]

Maybe because we have been talking about children so much in the past couple days, I looked at this cover and saw the face of a vulnerable baby, a two year old dressed up for make-believe.

For me, the face answers the question: No. It makes no sense to kill our babies.

[itwasntme]

It's just the usual media abuse of any image they want to attract buyers. The human face is one of the most eye-grabbing images you can put on a cover. I agree with PTate about the boyishness of this face, but I think you have to be over 30 to get that.

OT, but visually interesting: today on CNN I saw an unannounced new Iraqi flag: it now suddenly has three green stars! Who do you suppose thought of that?

[ummabdulla]

What's the opposite of "bold"? That's what this cover is. Especially the text... the only interesting thing to me was wondering what Gerald Ford's "secret faith" was. (OK, I went and read the article; he was a born-again Christian, but didn't publicize it.)

For some reason, the black and white photo of a soldier made me think of the old LIFE magazines - not that this compares.

itwasntme, doesn't the Iraqi flag already have three stars?

[Rafael]

The cover didn't need the word "surge" on it, the question would have sufficed. By putting in bigger type and in bold (yellow, strange choice), it focuses on the WH spin and not the full field of the debate.

[tina]

he doesn't look very happy, does he?

Something about this expression says "whipped dog" to me.

It's a pleading look. "Don't kill me for nothing".

[curt]

First, the stare feels like TIME pawning off the responsibility and guilt for more lives sacrificed (potentially, even Philip's here) on you and me.

Whether or not they are attempting to "pawn it off" I can't say; but, since there are many of us out here who initially agreed with the war (however reluctantly) and have since changed our minds about it, then I would suggest that "we" do have a responsibility to these men and women.

Besides, is this cover of "Time" only meant to address those who do not support the war?

Whether we like it or not Bush's war is our war; we will be dealing with it's consequences long after he is gone from office.

Yeah...in my opinion "we" do have a responsibility for much of what has, and is yet to, happen.

[readytoblowagasket]

To me, the black-and-white image of the boy-soldier conjures an immediate and rather affecting association with Vietnam. If TIME intended that visual connection in the viewer, then the editorial slant is certainly anti-Administration, or *against* the president's idea of a troop surge in Iraq. So, "Does sending more soldiers to Iraq make *any* sense?" can easily morph into the larger and more important question: "Does the Iraq War make *any* sense?" The answer, according to TIME, is No.

[thirdeye pushpin]

I think the text reads like the soldier's thoughts, but it is depersonalized. Imagine a thought bubble, saying "Does sending me to Iraq make any sense?" Many soldiers are begining to question the war. Ehren Watada is refusing to go as an officer. I agree with the assessment that Time is subtly recognizing the terrifying prospect that our army may be demoralized by this mission. The Covenant between commander in chief and the working military has been broken and it is staring us in the face and will continue to do so.

[Mad_nVT]

Does the magnifying glass mean that the mainstream media is going to look more closely at what the Bush Administration is doing?

One can only hope.

But my guess, based on this cover and everything else, is that Big Media will bring out a magnifying glass and then only make cautious and spotty use of it.

[lima]

Note to the Armed Forces:

Isn't there anyone in charge who can march into the Oval office and tell the asshole to get out or else?

[KansasKowboy]

I am not sure if TIME really puts that much subliminal thought into the cover. Anything they do on the cover is to sell magazines, nothing more. I think the black and white image of the young soldier is perhaps TIME's way of siding with the popular thought in the USA, which is we need to get out of Iraq. I think they are saying, "do you want more young people to die?" As far as the making the word "any" yellow, I think that is just for visual color balance. They have a black and white photo below. They have printed the word "SURGE" in yellow because it goes well as a visual impact with black and red (the TIME logo and border colors). Making the word "any" yellow is purely for the sake of visual balance. And as a way, I suppose to put emphasis on the sentence,"Make any sense?" They could have just as easily italized the word "any" in white ink to make their point, but coloring the text yellow gave it balance.

[tom bjork]

we are the snipers with our sattelite/surrounds watching young gi jo go to war.

and i say jo because this particular choice of a face captures any unusally high cross section of humanity.
he could be half asian/ african/ euro/ american indian.
with a closer shave, she could be a more feminine woman.

even with the reportage of his name etc.
i am still debating whether this is in fact a computer de/enhanced photgraph or not.
the racial graying has a broader appeal,
and i see the yellow words alone as some kind of myspace slang, 'the surge, any?'
and certainly the word, ' sense', is implied beyond the 'se' at the end of the second line.

but that leaves us 'does the war in iraq make any'?
a kind of poo-poo pee-pee potty
which in general reflects not only TIME® 's mentality towards their product
but a lot of other corporate bloated media.

[gulfie]

I found the cover quite powerful. The black and white image brought back many I remember seeing in Life and Look magazines during the Viet Nam fiasco. The boyish, clear-complexioned face evokes innocence, fear, and futility. The only thing I don't like is the color yellow. To some it might suggest we're yellow for wanting to bring our boys home -- or, worse, that the troops are yellow.

[lower_case A]

Such a haunting face on the TIME cover. I found myself staring into those eyes for quite some time.

I wonder what we will hear from the group of active-duty military personnel who will be delivering their Appeal For Redress to congress on Martin Luther King Day. They seem to believe we should be out of Iraq.....yesterday. And, I fully agree.

[dono]

"Make Any S" looks to me a lot like "Make Any $"

Why include either the 'Make' or the 'S'?

[Stella]

Haunting and extraordinarily innocent-looking. I would have a hard time connecting that boyish face with the stories of atrocities I hear. We're supposed to have faith in the nobility of our boys, even if we do send them on a hellish mission.

[MonsieurGonzo]

Terrified Soldiers Terrifying People : “...many of those killed in the ongoing violence are civilians. The biggest local complaint is that US forces attack civilians at random in revenge for colleagues killed in attacks by the resistance.

More than 5,000 civilians killed by US soldiers have been buried in Fallujah cemeteries and mass graves dug on the outskirts of the city, according to the Study Center for Human Rights and Democracy, a non-governmental organization based in Fallujah.

"At least half the deceased are women, children and elderly people," group co-director Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji told IPS.

Overstretched [frustrated, isolated, and lacking any clear sense of purpose = "The Mission"] US soldiers appear to be punishing civilians while suffering from some form of post-traumatic stress disorder. IPS reported Jan. 3 that new guidelines released by the Pentagon last month allow commanders now to redeploy soldiers suffering from such disorders...”

...now you know how conflicted the German peoples felt when they looked into the eyes of their own Waffen-SS during World War II :-/

[lytom]

Before dying in combat a U.S. occupation soldier in Afghanistan will have participated in the killing of 16-19 Afghan civilians...
In Iraq, the ratio of total civilian deaths to that of U.S. military deaths is much larger and depends on whose statistics you depend on.
Gino Strada, war surgeon and founder of Emergency Italia, with extensive first-hand experience in many modern war theaters, has argued that over 80% of casualties in modern wars are civilians.
So back to the Time picture and to the handsome, boyish mercenary: The surge will increase the number of Iraqi casualties, and mainly the civilian casualties in Iraq. What is not included in this picture are the horrible conditions civilians live under the occupation.What should also be considered too are the jobs these US mercenaries do in Iraq and that is certainly not helping the civilian population in Iraq.
The Time question about Surge is only sensitive toward the US readers...Let's not bring in the blood and gory, the picture looks so innocent! And putting it mildly "...does it make any sense?" Is disgusting!

[Katie]

The image - type, treatment - helmut - looks straight out of WWII - so does it make sense? The edges are even blurred in an oval shape, like a keepsake. IF wWII, the answer is Yes!

If the image were in color, even grainy color aka vietnam, the answer would be NO!

the marine is ethnic - no wrinkles, big brown eyes. but his name is sort of aristocratic on either front - philipp + german last name. very respectable.

[monique]

I think the b&w evokes many Viet Nam era images of soldiers. That depersonalized quality (mentioned above) is typical of military expression that this guy is anonymous, more tool than human. That is, this guy has no choice in anything that is happening to him. In contrast to that posturing however, the sensuality and thus humanity of his young face is inescabaple. It is remarkly fuller, i.e. contemporary, than those pictures of skinny vets of the 60s/70's and the darkness of the skin and eyes points to the huge minority population in today's military. The red border and title in contrast to the b&w evokes the inevitable spilling of more blood that will result from this "surge".