that my comment infuriates you.

I’ve been away from the computer all day and not had the opportunity to respond earlier. It seems my comments have not been well received. I haven’t had the chance to read the entire thread but will attempt at this point to enlarge on my feelings and respond to some of the issues that you raise.

I wonder that you or anyone would consider a soldier’s actions in the field the same as those of a private citizen. I don’t think the comparison with a civilian in a car accident is at all valid.

A soldier acts on his/her government’s orders and on behalf of the civilians not participating in the conflict. Those actions are for the purpose of protecting the lives and values of those at home.

I consider a soldier’s actions to be more akin to those of the police – and as such their actions in the field are not those of a private citizen. However, a soldier’s actions also have an inherently political context as well. Individual soldiers do not act on their own initiative but at the behest of the government elected by their fellow citizens.

I don’t consider the printing of the photographs of this young man to be a casual or gratuitous act. I consider the publication of photographs of war to be a public service. I think all those in service deserve to have their actions seen with clear eyes by those on whose behalf they act.

IMHO if I can’t look at the sacrifice that others are called to make on my behalf – if I balk at seeing and acknowledging that their courage may cost them their lives then I am a poor supporter indeed.

I look and I feel compassion and sympathy for that young man. I am proud of and awed by his sacrifice on my behalf – and I sincerely hope that the conflict he gave his life in the service of comes to a good end and his family can have the comfort of knowing that his life was not ultimately sacrificed in vain.

In past conflicts there has never been a question that those at home be shielded from the difficult and often mortal consequences of the young men and women that serve.

I grew up with daily images of the human cost of the war in Vietnam – some of those images of wounded and dying soldiers are iconic – in the sense that most of us would recognize them. The sacrifice of those serving was clear and those of us at home could not look away or blithely go about our daily business without being aware of those that acted in our name and ostensibly for our protection.

By and large we have been shielded from visually confronting the harsh realities of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think there was a fear on the part of the previous administration that those images might provoke a similar backlash amongst the population that the ones of the Vietnam conflict did.

Be that as it may I don’t think that it was the correct choice. That some may attempt to use those images to serve a particular purpose is nothing new – but to exploit a young man’s death for a political purpose is a shallow and callous act indeed. It does not, however, reflect on the young man but on the one who would intend to exploit it.

For the rest of us – we should be able to look upon his sacrifice and honour him. It is not an abomination to see his gift to us and be moved by it.

I said earlier that I do understand his family’s reluctance to see it. It must be painful indeed for them to be reminded of their loss and the nature of it. But I don’t see why the rest of us shouldn’t share in that pain and loss and be protected or shielded from it. I think such pictures bring home to the rest of us what our soldiers are being asked to do on our behalf.

In reading some of the other responses to my original remarks I’m struck by the fact that no one has offered a reason as to why it was appropriate for us to see the visual record of other conflicts and the sacrifices and suffering born by both members of the military and civilians before – and yet this one picture is deemed highly inappropriate.

That the AP went against the family’s wishes is unfortunate. In that sense the publication is unfortunate in that the action has caused the family more distress. Do I believe that the family deserves some deference? Yes – and I think the AP recognized that by deferring publication of the article and the picture until after the family had the opportunity to see their son put to his final rest.

That the AP went against the military’s request is, IMHO, the correct action. Someone upthread commented that the press is supposed to be an objective observer of such conflicts and as such provide an objective record. To do so they cannot be seen to censor images in the service of the government’s interest.

The public record of war – no matter how painful to some of the individuals among us – has certainly not been at issue before. Nor should it be now.