"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -Ernest Hemingway
The war images that ultimately receive “official” status are those that help serve national and/or governmental interests in relation to war. They are chosen because they propagate a certain belief or incite a particular emotion(s) from the public concerning war. They are utilized to help to persuade and influence the public’s opinion and ultimately conform it to match the views of that nation’s government concerning war and their involvement (or avoidance) in it. War images that are distributed throughout the media and are allowed to be viewed by the public are normally those which the government has sanctioned and approved for public consumption. They are the images the public sees repeatedly on TV, in the newspapers, and in magazines; these are the images that ultimately become permanently ingrained into the public’s mind. The images that were first circulated at the beginning of the war in Iraq were extremely censored, strategically sanitized, and carefully chosen to be very patriotic. The first picture I chose was one of the many depicting the events of the 9/11 attacks. September 11, 2001 was a day that will forever be ingrained in the hearts and minds of all Americans. That fateful day when terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger airliners and crashed two of them directly into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City the safety and freedom of all Americans was violently breeched and violated and their lives turned upside down. Following the attacks, the Bush administration declared an official War on Terrorism. The plan was to capture Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, prevent future terrorist attacks, and stop the insurgence of other terrorist networks. This image graphically captures the chaotic disaster of the 9/11 attacks. The violent explosions and smoke streaming out of the Twin Towers will forever be an image associated with that fateful day. In the case of the image above, it powerfully incites a strong sense of patriotism and unity for Americans and became an image that “silently” proposed that the war in Iraq was truly a unified American endeavor and a justifiable cause. This graphic image touched and continues to touch the raw nerves of Americans whose freedom and safety had been so viciously violated and taken away from them on American soil. It instilled in Americans a belief that whoever committed these inhumanely disastrous attacks must be stopped at all costs; even if they were not exactly sure who or where the “bad guys” were. It was this image and many others depicting the catastrophic events of 9/11 that were constantly on the news and papers for months following 9/11. It was impossible to turn on the TV or read a paper without seeing one of these images. This image (and others depicting the attacks of 9/11) became propaganda for America’s invasion of Iraq; a visual justification for the War on Terrorism. Many of the “unofficial” images (aka images that the Bush administration did not approve of) of the war in Iraq like the Abu Ghraib photographs and the images of the coffins of dead soldiers that had fought in Iraq were censored and concealed from public view because they had the power to make people question the Bush administration, America's involvement in the war, and would ultimately allow people to see the cruel reality, immorality, and inhumanity of war; in essence they were inconvenient evidence.
The photograph to the left is of Iraqis in Baghdad, assisted by U.S. Marines, toppling down a statue of Iraq President, Saddam Hussein, on April 9, 2003. This photo has become one of the most pervasive images presented to the American public by the media depicting the Iraq war. This image helped Americans feel justified in fighting the war in Iraq because they were successfully preserving the freedom and justice not only of American citizens, but also of people all over the world. It helped calm people’s uncertainty about the war and shed a positive light on American war efforts. We had “successfully” ended a tyrant’s rule, liberated oppressed people, and were winning the fight against terrorism; this image was able to capture the spirit of the moment. It glorified American military achievements and helped to unite America through a common cause; the worldwide preservation of freedom and justice. This image would ultimately come to represent the unspoken propositions that war was a national endeavor, it was American, it was manly, and it was all about winning. Both the images of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Hussein image are images that I believe Plato would approve of because they inspire patriotism and help to bring a nation towards unity. These images (and many others) were utilized by the Bush administration to increase and encourage the public’s support of the war.
Images are means through which ideologies can be produced and onto which ideologies can be projected (Practices of Looking 21). They can be utilized and even exploited in order to instill and affirm beliefs in their target audience. They are powerful “tools of mass persuasion” that help to forge and maintain a mass ideology (Practices of Looking 164). Their powerful capability to influence and even change the views and beliefs of individuals is mainly the reason they have the potential at times to be harmful. Leni Riefenstahl’s infamous film, Triumph of the Will, a film that documents the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, is a prime example of how images can be saturated with ideologies and utilized to produce a national ideology. This impressive visual spectacle was utilized by the Nazi Party to convert and instill the Nazi ideology into the German masses and is considered to be the best Nazi propaganda ever created. In the article, “Regarding the Torture of Others”, Sontag argues that the inhumane and horrific treatment that Iraqi prisoners received while under American custody was underscored by the Bush administration’s extreme preoccupation with the effects these images would have on America’s reputation (Sontag 2). She relates how the Bush administration mainly focused on trying to prevent and limit the dissemination of the photographs rather than addressing “the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures”; in essence ignoring the real issues at hand (Sontag 1). After the photos surfaced, they were openly criticized, blamed, and condemned “as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict”; the fact that the photos existed became a distraction from the real issues in question (Libby 44). These images are just factual “representatives of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with Bush administration’s distinctive policies” (Sontag 2). These were horrific images of prisoners that had been tortured, dehumanized, and stripped of the “rights accorded by international law and the laws of all civilized countries” by American soldiers; images that had the power to visually “assault” viewers (Sontag 3). Sontag argues that it is critical to stay focused on the events that are depicted in these photos not on the photos themselves in order for any justice to be served and the individuals responsible for these horrific crimes made to pay (Sontag 1). In the case of the Abu Ghraib photos, I also believe that it is crucial to “bring evidence of the documented evidence into the public sphere and to call for action in response to the events they record” instead of blaming and condemning the photos themselves; in essence focusing on, addressing, and correcting the real social, political, and/or cultural problems that are depicted by the images (Libby 44).
Just as the images of napalmed children and horrifically slaughtered innocent civilians in Vietnam played a critical role in transforming American public opinion about the Vietnam War; the disturbing images of Abu Ghraib had an immense impact on the way Americans viewed the war in Iraq and our involvement in it. The Bush administration had so long tried to paint a rosy picture that despite a few minor setbacks; things were going well in Iraq and the War on Terrorism was going strong. However, it was not till the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced and were circulated throughout the media that “the magnitude of the abuses and their international ramifications started to become clear” and the Bush administration found themselves in hot water (Gogan and Sokolowski 3). These disturbing photos made it difficult for the administration to continue to claim that everything in Iraq was going according to plan; horrific images of beaten, bruised, and abused Iraqi prisoners at the hands of American soldiers are not exactly easy images to have to explain to the American public. These images ultimately had a huge global impact on the public's opinion of the war in Iraq that words could never come close to. I believe that Plato would view the photos of the Abu Ghraib prison as harmful and condemn them because they have the power to evoke a passionate emotional response instead of a rational response in their audience. Also, they do not glorify or function to bring a nation towards unity and harmony, but instead blatantly reveal “inconvenient evidence” and have the power to incite people to actively question the actions of their government
Governments all over the world have always been concerned with the public’s political opinion concerning war and have actively pursued to suppress images that contradict their own interests. During World War I, the U.S. Army would execute any soldier who took a photograph; fearing that any photograph taken might contain some “unofficial evidence” that might negatively sway public opinion about the war. The surfacing of the scandalous photos of the Abu Ghraib prison incited quite a response from the Bush Administration who had fiercely tried to suppress and conceal this “inconvenient evidence” (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld stated that the pictures “never should have been published” and quickly banned the use of all cameras by the U.S. military in Iraq and President Bush stated, “their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people…I didn’t like it one bit.” (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). The Bush administration had utilized images to sell the war in Iraq to the American public by showcasing images that justified the war in Iraq (such as the images of the 9/11 attacks) and concealing images of Iraqi civilian deaths and flag draped coffins; images that would evoke an emotional response from the American public against the war in Iraq; emotions that would ultimately be evoked by the Abu Ghraib photos (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). These horrific images did not help to make war more palatable or even justifiable as had the images of the 9/11 attacks, firefighters, Saddam Hussein, or terrorists. They did not promote the message that war is universal and a normal part of life, but instead painted the harsh reality of war. They were visual evidence of the brutality, inhumanity, and immorality of war; images that were in essence a clear violation of the Geneva conventions (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). They crudely exposed to the whole world the cruel and evil nature that war brings out in humans.
Sadly, war is often romanticized in order to be made more palatable to people. It is more often than not showcased as being a glorious, honorable, and justifiable event; a normal part of everyday life. However, in portraying war in this positive light another part of the multifaceted reality of war is overlooked and concealed; the images that depict the horrific reality of war and highlight the imminent danger that the “winning is everything” mentality can have on humanity. Many feared (mainly the Bush administration) that the iconic images coming out of the war in Iraq were not gloriously patriotic photos that promoted the war, but instead amateur photographs of Iraqi prisoners tortured at the hands of American soldiers; images of war that the public normally was not allowed to see (Sontag 1). They also believed that it was “unfair” that the American effort in Iraq would come to be summed up by these horrific images (Sontag 2). The Abu Ghraib photographs depict dehumanizing “interrogation practices” that were supposedly utilized to create an “army of informants”, but ultimately were “intended to assert cultural dominance locally and to restore racial and political hierarchies globally” (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). Not only did these posed photographs graphically depict the inhumane atrocities that were done to the prisoners by American soldiers; they also served to further humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the prisoners (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). I do not believe that images of war should be concealed and/or censored from public view during wartime. Living in a democratic nation, I believe that all Americans should be given the respect that they deserve and allowed to see any type of war image they so choose to; even if this means that public support and/or approval of the war will decrease. What does the American government have to hide from the American public that they are not allowed to see what is going on in Iraq? As American citizens, we have the right to know what our government is doing especially in times of war. People should not only be allowed to be shown images of war that highlight its necessity and benefits (like the images of the 9/11 attacks or the image of Saddam Hussein), but also be allowed to view the inhumane and horrific aspects of war and then form an educated opinion based on the variety of information they have been presented with. It was feared that these images would have the power to taint America’s reputation, image, and success as the lone superpower, and turn the tide against the war (Sontag 2). However, the real issue at hand is the horrific events and crimes these images depict that yearn for justice to be served; not the effects they will have on tainting “America’s claim to moral superiority” (Sontag 2). It is important to remember that these images act as a mirror to the horrific events that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison and “the only thing worse than the photos themselves would be if they never came to public light" and justice could not be served (Marks 1).
The fact that the disturbing photographs of American soldiers torturing and abusing Iraqi prisoners at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison were exhibited at the International Center of Photography and the Andy Warhol museum attracted much controversy. The propriety of displaying these horrific images was heatedly debated. The exhibit titled "Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib.", allowed viewers to see the amateur digital photographs that had the power to negatively influence the public's opinion of the war in Iraq, and be exposed to the human rights that had been violently and horrifically violated by American soldiers. I am not sure whether or not the photos should or should not have been exhibited as they were. There are many questions that need to be answered in order for me to be able to form an educated opinion whether or not these photos should have been exhibited. Firstly, who owns these images? How did the International center of Photography obtain these images? Did they receive permission to exhibit them? Are they really art? Are they still art if they were not originally created to be “artistic”? On the other hand, it could be argued that though the images lack “artistic” qualities they still function as art because they serve to be a social/political commentary on the war in Iraq and horrific events that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison. The issues as to whether or not these images should have been exhibited are as controversial and complicated as the images themselves.
Sources:
Marks , Alexandra. "How the Images of Prison Abuse Shape Perceptions of the War." 11 May 2004. Poynter On The Record. 14 Nov 2007 .
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/B/2/3/Geneva-Conventions-e.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxQEiiHP8Y0R4SP8TAh78Sof-HPAruMUR_-yahWJ9TaDqLV7d96Wv0m7ljP5aCvHCR3VjfvGQhkDXefRNkgGV1aWRivHF2w85ht3kZEEykaKvkEEL-0vYzy9M9q_jiqw5LbvvCkJKFGhz/s1600-h/db_SaddamHusseinStatue61.jpg
The war images that ultimately receive “official” status are those that help serve national and/or governmental interests in relation to war. They are chosen because they propagate a certain belief or incite a particular emotion(s) from the public concerning war. They are utilized to help to persuade and influence the public’s opinion and ultimately conform it to match the views of that nation’s government concerning war and their involvement (or avoidance) in it. War images that are distributed throughout the media and are allowed to be viewed by the public are normally those which the government has sanctioned and approved for public consumption. They are the images the public sees repeatedly on TV, in the newspapers, and in magazines; these are the images that ultimately become permanently ingrained into the public’s mind. The images that were first circulated at the beginning of the war in 
The photograph to the left is of Iraqis in 
