Is Callous the right word?

I was reading this Editorial in the New York Times when I came across this portion of it, which really got to me:

There are pictures of children who were wounded and barely clinging to life, and some who appeared to be dead. There was a close-up of a soldier who was holding someone's severed leg. There were photos of Iraqis with the deathlike stare of shock, stunned by the fact that something previously unimaginable had just happened to them. There were photos of G.I.'s happily posing with the bodies of dead Iraqis.

Why would that be something anyone would want to photograph? We're not talking about journalists here, but regular soldiers. I'd question why it was necessary for journalists to snap numerous pictures of the dead or dying but rather than help dying children we make it a "kodak" moment?

I have a picture from a friend who was in Iraq, it was when he was in Kuwait before it all started, he and several friends are posing with a camel. That is understandable, after all camel rides aren't something we have here in the States in most places. But posing with dead Iraqis? "God damn honey can't wait to get home and show you and the kids the pics of me with those dead Iraqis".....

People die in wars, on both sides, but to make it be like that, with no respect for the dead or dying is personally reprehensible to me. Here in my own city the local newspaper wasn't careful in showing a picture from a crane accident, you could if you really studied the picture see one of the dead men. (I didn't notice it until it was pointed out so it wasn't obvious at all). The outcry against the newspaper being "insensitive" to the family was huge. When the contracters in Iraq were murdered and their bodies desecrated the outcry was huge. Many media outlets refused to show the pictures.

Where are the outcries against this? Or does it only count if it is American bodies being shown....