Argumentative Essay: Gulf War

The question whether the transition of the bodily remains of the US soldiers should be public and gain media coverage or not has been urgent since 1991, when the country participated in the Persian Gulf War. From 2009, President Obama lifted the governmental ban and declared that the American nation should know the price they pay at wars and the heroes who died for their country should be honored.

There are several important arguments in the discussion of the issue, but they all have counter arguments, so it is problematic to understand who is more right. Mainly those, who defend the news media, and those, who defend the privacy of families, where someone died, represent the opposite sides.

The main issue the representatives of mass media emphasized was that the government does not allow the public see the real cost of war and deprives them of images. However, it is difficult to agree with it, because the reporters were allowed to take pictures during private burial ceremonies if the family gives their consent. In addition, the information about the number of deaths at wars is public, so there is no need to cause artificial sensations. Then, the defenders of the anti-ban campaign note that the soldiers died for the country and so the nation should grieve with their relatives. The idea is quite good, though in practice the only people who really grieve for the dead are their relatives and friends. That is why there is no need to make families go to Dover and be present at the arrival of the bodies. It might be psychologically and financially difficult for them.

These reasons make me think that there is no need to break privacy of grieving families. If the reporters and the administration want the nation to understand the price of war, it is possible to mention it in other words, without using pictures. Sometimes excessive visualization is unnecessary.