Amanda D. Post # 11

Amanda Dhillon

1. It seems that the most recognized images of a war are those that have been granted an unofficial title of being an “official” war image. Accordingly, then, those images that either become the center of a culture war/ conflict or are displays or a great patriotic victory are the ones that become a war’s “official” images. The progression of a culture war over an image or an image’s iconic status stemming from its patriotic nature causes overexposure of the image to the public, which then begins to recognize it as a symbol of the war, helping it achieve an “official” status. Thus, when the image is seen repeatedly by multitudes of people, in the news, on propaganda, in advertisements, etc., it becomes a figurehead and an “official” image of the war during which it was created. Images from the Iraq war that have reached such a status must be ones which have been everywhere in the public eye, ones which the people can directly connect to the war, and there are three excellent examples of these: the photograph of an Iraqi prisoner standing blindfolded on a box at Abu Ghraib, the photograph of the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue, and President Bush arriving on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Each of these images also is used to serve the interests of certain groups or parties, thus enhancing their status as “official” images by thrusting them further into public gaze. The Hussein and Bush photographs are generally used in support of the war effort to show US victories to the people and make it appear that everything happening in Iraq is positive and going according to plan. The photo of the prisoner at Abu Ghraib contradicts the message sent by the previously mentioned images, showing that there are atrocities being committed in this war, and it is not as black and white as is made to seem. The line between “good guys” and “bad guys” is blurred for the American public viewing this image because no longer are the US soldiers glorified “liberators” of the Iraqi people; they are also torturing the very people they supposedly protect.

Saddam Hussein statue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42397000/jpg/_42397683_saddam1_ap.jpg

Prisoner on box: http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris/elements_of_ecology/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

President Bush on aircraft carrier: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/images/2007/05/01/bush_in_flight_suit_at_air_base.jpg

2. While it can be understood that images are not merely “transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Libby 44) because in many cases they are captured after deliberate staging and other manipulations or purposeful biases, more attention should be focused on the events depicted rather than the images themselves, as these images are representative of deeper conflicts and problems, particularly in the case of the Abu Ghraib photographs. As Sontag explains in her article “Regarding the Torture of Others,” too much emphasis is placed on the photos as a way to avoid dealing with the greater issue at hand, the nationally embarrassing and outrageous conduct of the military at Abu Ghraib. She explains how the presidential administration found itself “shocked” (Sontag 1) at the images and berated and banned them from publication instead of dealing with the military leaders and soldiers in the photographs who committed these torturous acts against the Iraqi prisoners and who received far lesser of negative repercussions than the images themselves. Here in is the primary issue that should be focused on, as the images do represent something much worse than what they physically are (as was stated earlier, they are not simply “screens”). They represent a prejudice and hatred toward the Iraqis and perhaps even their religion as they establish a social/ethnic hierarchy that, unfortunately, some Americans feel is the truth of the world order. In this, the photos do carry a harmful ideology, as others could view them and interpret this possibly implied message as truth, especially since the culture industry has conditioned white people of privilege to view others in this way through various means of visual representations (film, images, etc.), but this is not quite as important as that issue which lies beyond this. As Sontag states throughout her article, people take the images too far and they become a kind of scapegoat, diverting the blame and attention from addressing (no less fixing) the real problems. Thus, the image itself as a physical entity should fall into the background when uncovering the true issues at play—the events depicted in them. Images, as can be seen in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos and the subsequent treatment of and reaction toward the photos versus the people and events within them, can often get in the way of discovering and correcting the real social problems that they depict.

3. It is very difficult to determine whether or not images of war should be kept from the public during wartime, and arguments can be made to justify both cases. It would seem, though, that citizens, particularly in nations that consider themselves democratic, should be given the ability (and probably the right) to view such images despite the negative reactions that will undoubtedly result. For instance, photographs such as some of those taken during the Vietnam War of seemingly helpless villagers and children being attacked or displaced by US soldiers would be enough to convince some that war is not right and should be abruptly brought to a close before there is any more damage to civilians and other innocent bystanders. Obviously, displaying images like these to the American public would demolish domestic support for the war, making it harder for the government and the military to continue on. Such a hindrance to the war effort and lack of support can be enough, sometimes, to cause a disastrous end to a war. However, despite the problems from and vicious outcry of the public against a war because of exposure to war images, the people should have the ability to know what actions and policies their country is really executing halfway around the world, and what their military, their national defense, is truly acting out and how they are fairing in battle. They should be spared neither atrocities nor losses and victories as long as they are the true events of the war. As far as the Abu Ghraib photographs are concerned, they should not have been or be “exhibited.” They are not photographic art and thus should not be treated as such, as it implies a sort of glorification. However, they should be circulated in other media, such as in the newspaper or on the television news broadcasts, as the people of the US should have the right to know what kinds of “criminal behavior” (Sontag 3) their military are engaging in. This is especially important because when actions such as those depicted in the photos are carried out, they should be punished just as severely, and the photographs can work as visual evidence and reveal this truth to the people and the administration, who should take appropriate action to stop, to prevent, and, to the extent possible, amend the horrible deeds of the soldiers involved. Photographs of war can be very effective records of the events and progress of war, and the people should be able to have access to this information since war concerns all of a nation’s citizens.