saintsrest44

Here is a perspective from my late uncle who was a combat photographer in WWII and again briefly during the Korean Conflict. Before he passed over 20 years ago, my uncle predicted that eventually Combat Photography would be diminished or eliminated because the military did not want photos of the brutality and loss of US lives to be made so public, visceral, and immediate. He believed the military felt that photographic coverage during the Vietnam War fueled the protests back home and made it more difficult to get public support behind war efforts. I should add that he felt it was important for civilians to actually see what war was like, and he hoped that his work would help keep the public connected with the reality of War. I make no judgments here, just a statement of his oft spoken thoughts about the role of photography during conflict.

pendennis

After the U.S. entered WWII, there were emotional and fierce arguments about showing dead American soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen on newsreel footage of combat operations by non-military journalists. It wasn't until the U.S. invaded Buna-Gona in 1943 that Life Magazine published a still photo of American dead on Buna Beach. Not long after that the Pentagon relented and allowed movie and still footage of American casualties to be shown in publications and newsreels. The strongest opposition was by those who didn't want a loved one to see a dead American before being notified by the Pentagon. In the end, it was decided that it was better to see the dead. Part of the reasoning was be that American resolve to defeat the Axis powers would be boosted.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

There is a difference between “justification” and “cause”. My comment is about the cause; I have no idea how they can justify doing metallurgic testing on each and every hammer. In part, I would think it has to do with compiling bids by committee. Every committee member feels that it is his or her obligation to put input into the process. And the committees are not comprised of just people, but multiple committees, as well. But this is the same Pentagon that freely gave credit cards to a huge number of people working in that building, many of which were used to charge hookers and porn sites. The list of economic and financial atrocities are endless.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The first War that depicted photographic War Casualties in America, was the Civil War, 1861-65. Civilians really didn't know the horrors of warfare. Many were shocked, especially mothers . Those photographers changed that. Ken Burns in his Civil War Documentary, mentioned how Civil War Photography launched combat photography afterwards.

brooklyn-camera I Loc: Brooklyn, NY

I was in the Navy from 64 - 68 and my rate was AD-J Aviation Machinist Mate (Jet) there was also AD-R Aviation Machinist Mate (reciprocating). When is DC went to the Viet Nam Memorial and ran across the Navy Honor Guard and one of them was a Airman (E3). I ask if they still had the two ratings and he told me no, it is just named Aviation Machinist Mate. Guess that I'm showing my age... GO NAVY!

leftj Loc: Texas

It is a shame although the so-called savings is not in the equipment. It's the personnel cost.

pendennis

The most expensive part of the Defense Department budget is the cost of personnel (pay and benefits[medical, dental, retirement]). The hardware cost pales in comparison.

The "$600 hammer" makes for great headlines, but those are microscopic in comparison to human resources costs.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...well, contractors certainly don't run DOD. So, as far as "emphasis" provided, that would be the people in charge; both governmental and military. You can bet those who want contracts are greasing the wheels (part of that swamp we hear so much about) but I for one would try to separate these layers and leave the military with less blame. Of course they approve new weapons, but the funding is governmental. The "Military/Industrial Complex" is what you're referring to attributed to Ike...gotta be some truth there.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

They (contractors) do not... So far or more exactly not visibly, the lobby on the other hand does not give $$$ to politicians for nothing so... Purchase a politician, purchase a vote, purchase a controlling interest...

DOD has a budget decided by congress. (Lobby vote purchase)

Allocation of contracts are determined by the DOD under the control of congress. (Lobby vote purchase)

Congress(con)men and contractors depends on each others $$$ wise.

Between DOD incompetence and Congress way of doing business you have an unholy alliance with contractors. Congress mandates the closure of bases but when the base is in their district the congress parasites prevent this to happen. The result being more $$$ being wasted.

Prior to the Korean war the industry answered the DOD call for 'new stuff' by offering prototypes made at their own expenses. The DOD then selected what they needed. Today companies get to bid on vaporware, nebulous concept weapons created but drugged*** up flag officers. Once the lowest bid is accepted the company gets to work to produce a prototype, at the expense of the DOD. From there, it all goes to hell. The druggies change, the concept change, the cost rise, the delivery time gets pushed back the cost rise again. A third generation comes along, sees the mess but does nothing other than protest (and gets replaced if too loud) all the while the costs keep going up due to unforeseen circumstances then... Check the F-35 for this, the airplane to end all airplanes. An incredibly advanced piece of crap that goes too fast for troop ground support (supposedly one of its mission) and changing war environment. One air-frame (OV-10 Bronco) used in Vietnam that supposed to be 'retired' just got a reprieve yet it had been replaced by the more capable and safer A-10 already retired...

One mentioned that the personnel cost more than weapons... It does, because the VA depends on the DOD budget. The VA is yet another wasteful proposition. Time and time again scandals emerge from that 'thing'. Most is incompetence, carelessness but also graft and fund misused. VA is one of the worst outfit when it comes to support the so called 'wounded warriors'* and retirees.**

------
* That is a political name used to show care when really not one using it politician does.
** Why am I so against the VA? My wife and her boss worked with the VA concerning TBI (Middle East war signature wound) recognition and support. The VA wanted to classify all under PTSD which is something else altogether. They did make some progress, it took about three years and the result is far from perfect as PTSD is still the VA 'priority choice'. TBI are permanent injuries and not treatable so one diagnosed with TBI get a much more expensive lifetime support.
*** Not sure how else to name these **** and stay polite.

______________
So, in the scope of this... Photography is nothing but a nostalgic thing of the past. Do note that all along I am critical of the use of the footage/still, not of those who created it.

Still a political comment I will not apologize for.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I was a photographer in the Air Force in the 60's. I agree that this is a sad event, but I don't agree that this was driven by cost. In the days of film when I was a military photographer and cameras were not automated, a level of skill was required to consistently produce photographs with the quality necessary for commanders use for strategic decision making. So trained photographers were a necessity.

Today, a professional is not required. Soldiers in combat are equipped with helmet cams. Other photographic needs are met with automated cameras that do not require extensive training for their use. The skill need has shifted from the people taking the photographs to the technicians maintaining the equipment that record the images. Even tasks like taking passport and official personal photos are now done with equipment that requires no in depth knowledge of photography. It is a brave new world.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Cell phones baby,cell phones.

bobforman Loc: Anacortes, Washington State

For one tour in VN I never once saw a reporter or "official" photographer. A lot of us had personal cameras and that's how most of this war will be chronicled in the future (my guess). Good article in the WSJ yesterday about reporting in VN especially re. the Tet Offensive. It said 80% of reporters never left Saigon. 10% were in the field and the remaining 10% flew in from the US for a day or two, filed reports then beat it back to the States. I wish we had had military videographers with us at times.

al13

Left handed wrenches too, ha, 😢

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

In the 1970s, I was in several P-3, and VQ Squadron. Many times we were assigned photo recon of shipping in the Pacific, near Vietnam, and later in the Med. I took many of those Soviet Ships, and other Nations ships. We used Canon equipment aboard most of the flights. I even used my own camera at times. I had no Navy training in photography, just a bit a amature shots while stationed in Subic Bay, and Rota. So, I was elected photographer on the P-2s and P-3s I flew on. So, the Navy didn't use designated photographers in every instance when gathering intelligence.

B

Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

Sad but they have drones now.