Aaron Post 11

Aaron Childree

There is an old proverb that says, “All is fair in love and war.” While there are laws such as those set out in the Geneva Conventions that are supposed to set regulations in theory, this statement is for the most part still true today. War is a time when killing other human beings is somehow justifiable and moral boundaries are crossed on an everyday basis. In war the decision lies not in choosing between good and evil but in choosing the lesser of two evils. Soldiers are greatly affected by being in such a harsh situation in which almost nothing is black and white. In order to kill your enemy and not consider the guilt and remorse that killing makes you feel, you must dehumanize your enemy. If the thing that you are shooting at is not a human, then maybe you can sleep at night.

Not to absolve the soldiers who took the disturbing pictures at Abu Ghraib of blame, because everyone should be held responsible for their actions no matter what the circumstance, but the reason that these photos were taken is because of the nature of war as described above. The photos are more evidence of what war does to the human mind than anything else. The pictures are a record of an actual event, but they are also a commentary on human nature and how it is affected by war and violence.

Part 1

The issue of what is an “official” image has become increasingly complicated with all the advances in technology that have taken place over the past few decades. There used to not be any photographs taken during a war that weren’t official because the only way that photos could be seen was through the “official” media (such as television, magazines, newspapers). Another reason for this was that photography used to be much more time consuming and expensive. But with the rise of the internet and the affordability and ease of use of digital cameras, photos can be taken by anyone and distributed over the internet with virtually no restrictions and regulations. The government is no longer able to censor what people see. This can have a huge affect on how people view an overseas conflict. While in the past the government could censor images in order to put a positive spin on everything, and because the war was far away, people wouldn’t know that they were being fooled. Now that anyone can take pictures and post them on the internet, you can see what the war is really like, for better or for worse. The way war is covered and photographed today, there is really no difference between official photos distributed by the government and personal photos distributed over the internet.

The first image is from proggiemuslima.files.wordpress.com

The second image is from informedvoters.wordpress.com

The first image above takes an official image and then puts a twist on it. The image shows George W. Bush suited up in some sort of fighter pilot’s outfit with the words “mission accomplished” above him. This image was used by the government to show that the President was a part of the war and understood what the soldiers were going through, and also to show that our mission in Iraq was accomplished. The interesting twist in this image is that the background shows the coffins of soldiers that died in Iraq. This change of background completely alters the meaning of the photograph. While still showing the familiar “mission accomplished” photo, this image is clearly against the war and the deaths that it caused.

The second image is of soldiers in Iraq in the midst of a battle. It is meant to show the daily struggles the soldiers must go through. This is much different from the photos seen from the Civil War in which photos of the aftermath of battles were all that was available. Photography is now much quicker and more efficient and pictures of actual battles can be taken. This has a great effect on how people view war because now they can see what actually goes on during a battle.

Part 2

I think that images can be ideological. There are two basic levels to any image. There is the literal level, which is what you actually see, and then there is the figurative level, which includes the message that the picture is trying to get across. Every image has both of these levels. Even if the photographer was not trying to make an ideological statement with the picture, his subconscious thoughts and ideas will still inevitably be visible in his art. I am not saying that the literal aspect of a photograph isn’t important, we still must realize that the photo is depicting (or is often assumed to be depicting) an actual event, but the ideological statement that the photo makes is often more powerful. Sontag warns against the adverse effects of only considering photographs on an ideological level. She criticizes the Bush administration for this mistake: “The Bush administration and its defenders have chiefly sought to limit a public-relations disaster- the dissemination of the photographs- rather than deal with the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures” (Sontag, p.1). Images, especially photographs, are very powerful and we must be careful to examine them at both the literal and ideological levels.

Part 3

While Plato would surely disagree, I would say that war-time images should not be kept from the public, no matter what the adverse effects may be. While Plato’s ideas on censorship only allow for the public to view things that would strengthen their trust in the state, I would argue that the public has a right to know what is going on. I just don’t think that knowledge of any kind should be purposefully held back from anyone. It is better to know the truth then to live in ignorance, even if the truth is not what you want to hear. Even though the photos that were taken at Abu Ghraib are very disturbing, the public has a right to know what is going on in the war that is being funded by their taxes. Even though the photos may “produce disgust and fear in the viewer”(Libby,p.47) they still have the right to see them. The government shouldn’t focus on censoring things that they think are inappropriate from the public, they should be worried about preventing inappropriate behavior in the first place. The shock doesn’t come from the fact that these photographs were being hidden from us, it comes from the fact that the scenes depicted in the photos are things that no human being should ever be put through and we are appalled at the actions we see in the photographs. In this sense it is not the photographs themselves that are disturbing but the idea that they depict something that really happened.

I will leave you with a very disturbing quote from Lynddie England, one of the soldiers involved in the taking of the Abu Ghraib photographs. England was asked why the photos were taken and replied, “We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken” (Libby, p.47).