The cost of war
It was a somber, silent ceremony, a dignified assemblage to honor a soldier killed in action in Afghanistan as his remains were returned to American soil.
Only one thing made this different than ceremonies that have honored thousands of other fallen soldiers in the nearly eight years of war in Afghanistan and six years of war in Iraq: This time, the media were allowed to cover the return. [link]
No. There are two things that are different. One is cited above. The other, more important, is that the news media's best buddy - Barack Obama - is now in power and the members of that media can be expected to act dutifully respectful of our war dead now that their favorite guy is ordering them into battle and ordering them to their deaths.
During Bush's reign, we could expect this sort of thing on a regular basis. Our honored dead proved to be nothing more than useful pawns in the hands of those who hated Bush and wanted his war to end. And the president rightly refused to give them the noose with which to hang him.
But now it's Obama's war. And the media will show more maturity. It's a good war now. They'll be respectful. As they should have been all along.
That's why I support the decision to allow photographs to be taken of those coffins of brave soldiers killed in battle being returned home to their final resting place.
Anyone who has seen the heartrending and devastatingly powerful movie "Taking Chance," will understand.* If only we could count on the media to consistently do the same.
- - -
* If you don't subscribe to HBO, get a copy somewhere. "Taking Chance" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. And it's essentially a documentary.