The frequent repetition (often for political purposes) of the number of military men and women killed and wounded in Iraq illustrates the tremendous difference in the media coverage of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq with World War I, World War II and Korea.
In the latter, all the news dispatches from reporters and letters from the men were censored, and casualty numbers were not permitted.
There were no open phone communications and, of course, no TV.
Although next-of-kin were notified, bodies were buried temporarily in the war zones.
And there were no heart-rending pictures and reports of funerals or pictures and names of all the military personnel killed in recent action.
Families and friends would learn of a casualty through word of mouth or by seeing a Gold Star in the window.
I never heard the media use the word “quagmire,” although Guadalcanal and the Cassino/Anzio battle in Italy might qualify.
No one questioned the lack of an exit strategy for Africa after the defeat at Kasserine Pass in Tunisia or for Europe after the Bulge.
The troops cut off in the Philippines needed one.
The rationale for censorship was to prevent “aid and comfort to the enemy” and, as far as I know, was not questioned seriously.
It now appears that the rationale should be to prevent loss of morale on the home front.
That gives a lot more aid and comfort to the enemy than casualty lists.
I served in World War II with the 109th Engineers of the 34th division, a National Guard unit out of Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota, as a non-com and officer.
We had more than four years of active duty and more than three years of uninterrupted overseas time in North Ireland, Tunisia and Italy.
Our division had 3,737 killed and 14,165 wounded in action.
Many other divisions had similar numbers.
