Images in War, Where is the Line Drawn?

Seeing is believing. While researching the Vietnam War for my foreign policy class, I realized that what made this war so different in comparison to other wars fought by the United States in the 20th Century was the power of the image. Never before had journalism been so integrated into the action, allowing the world to peek in on what used to be something it only read about in newspapers. I truly think that this is the cause for the deterioration of public support for the war effort. It is easy to say, and justified to proclaim that the war was mismanaged by Kennedy, Johnson, and even Nixon, and that this caused great concern for the public. However, the outcries about the bloodshed may not have been so resounding among the nation if the images weren't available. It is hard for a government like ours to do all that it wants to when the public is so against the effort. Though it seems as though it doesn't need to be said, all wars are horrible in nature. Every war produces casualties, mangled bodies, and despair. The difference is that the public wasn't constantly being supplied images of troops in trenches in World War I. Perhaps one might view this as a good thing. If we see how barbaric war is, maybe we will take extra care to prevent it. Unfortunately, if one's thought process is embedded in realism, he would realize that war is often unavoidable. Wars are going to happen, and though it may be unpopular opinion, I think that the role of photojournalists should be limited. Yes, seeing troops raise the flag in Iwo Jima is an important image, and there is a need for documentation, but when it starts to undermine the war effort by turning public opinion completely against a well intentioned government, then a line has been crossed.