Jenn Post 11

Jenn Shea

Everyday, the American public is exposed to countless photographs portraying the latest in Iraq through television, major newspapers, and major magazines. In these portrayals, we can see the difference in the intent of the media versus the intent of the government. By showing both negative and positive images of the war in Iraq, the media, despite its intent to mostly attract an audience, at least portrays both sides to the events in Iraq. Although the public is exposed to more negative news about the events in Iraq via the news and publications, the photographs that are repeatedly presented as official or iconic are those showing the positive nature of war efforts, including photos of President Bush shaking hands with soldiers and soldiers working together as “An Army of One” in US Army ads. Photographs should be looked at as critical representations that increase a viewer’s awareness of certain events that have taken place. In this sense, the photographs of Abu Ghraib not only serve to portray the atrocities that occur during wartime, but what it means to take a photograph and the effects of its circulation when it portrays a message contrary to what a viewer is used to seeing.

Question One

War images become official when they are published in magazines and newspapers as general representations of a war. These images show collectively a central message as to the purpose and effects of war, and oftentimes, as in the 20^th century, such images portray a uniting theme that makes war seem, like any national or international crisis, something that brings people together and something that can be understood and recognized universally. These images positively depict war efforts. Even if devastation of some area in Iraq is shown, a positive spin is added in saying that at least progress (what some consider it to be) is being made. As Brian Wallis notes in “Remember Abu Ghraib,” “Aside from the atrocities they depict, as photographs, the images from Abu Ghraib contradict the studied heroics of the twentieth-century war photography that have been updated to the current conflict.” Wallis notes that the Abu Ghraib photos stray from the “photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable—the heroic flag-raisings, the dogged foot soldiers close to the action, the sense of shared humanity among combatants, and the search for visual evidence that war is universal and inevitable—” (Inconvenient Evidence 4). These types of images that serve only to promote the purpose of war can be identified as forms of political and war-time propaganda. This propaganda serves to unite individuals in the efforts and goals of the war by bringing in the general public to the sphere of the war with war scenes framed to help a viewer identify with what is going on without actually participating. As Susan Libby notes in “Culture/War,” “Vernacular photography also serves a bonding purpose in its ability to create a sense of community and group identity among participants in events and between the participants and the viewers. Sometimes these bonds cohere in depictions of power relations wherein the group with which the viewer identifies dominates or harms another group” (45). Thus, these images allow a sense of unity and increase the authority and power of the participants in the war, which can then be shared by viewers. Because of the idea of official war images serving to idealize and promote war efforts, many that do not encourage such unity and support are often not as publicized or are withheld through the efforts of an administration. Sontag, in discussing the discrepancy between the Bush administration’s reaction to the Abu Ghraib photos and the actual events, quotes Rumsfeld addressing the danger of the photographs: “ ‘There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,’ Rumsfeld acknowledged in his testimony. ‘If these are released to the public, obviously, it’s going to make matters worse.’ Worse for the administration and its programs, presumably, not for those who are the actual—and potential?—victims of torture.” In addition, the Abu Ghraib photographs would not be considered official because they contradict the common representation of members of the U.S. army as a strong unit that serves honorably on behalf of the country.

informedvoters.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/
This image portrays soldiers in the line of duty in Iraq. This is considered an official war photograph in that it portrays a sense of strength and courage in the American soldiers in fighting for the American cause-to establish peace and democracy in Iraq. In portraying these soldiers supposedly actually in action, there is a uniting factor in the war. This photograph invokes a sense of pride by showing soldiers performing their duties. Unlike photographs portraying soldiers lying dead on the ground or mourning the loss of their comrades, this photograph shows soldiers working together and shows the struggle they are going through for the sake of the United States and its goals abroad. This is a photo for which the American public would feel a sense of pride in seeing the services and sacrifices of the American soldiers.

thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
This statue toppling was staged by the Army, which may have been for safety measures but is also coincidentally beneficial for a poignant snapshot. This image is an official war image because it attempts to evoke a sense of accomplishment and pride amongst the American people. It suggests a form of progress by portraying the removal of Saddam from power. The gathering of people in the foreground of the photo also shows a sense of unity as it appears they had come to support the fall of the dictator.

Question Two

While I agree with Sontag in “Regarding the Torture of Others” that images are not nearly as important as the events they portray, I do not believe that images should be wholly disregarded in the role that they play in raising awareness about occurrences in war. In addition, as discussed in the previous topic about abortion, images can at times have much stronger impact on an individual, as an individual is given everything at once in an image and upon seeing it once is forced to recognize its message. In simply portraying issues through words, individuals are more likely to stop listening when they disagree. With an image, there is much less opportunity to do this. An image disturbing or moving enough is likely to leave a lasting impression. While some images used as propaganda may only serve as forms of ideological promotion and thus may seem dangerous, the presentation of the Abu Ghraib photographs proves that eventually, the American public will see through the heroics of war and the hidden atrocities will be unveiled as long as censorship does not occur.

Sontag also addresses the fact that the administration, mainly Bush and Rumsfeld, were quicker to address and apologize for the photographs than for the actions they represented that took place at Abu Ghraib. Sontag notes, “The administration’s initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs—as if the fault of horror lay in the images, not in what they depict” (Sontag). Although I agree that the photographs are crucial to the depiction of the atrocities that took place, I must agree with Sontag with this point that the fact that the atrocities occurred and that they were photographs holds much more weight in the issue and says a great deal more about the war as a whole and the human rights violations involved than simple representations of the reality. The motives of the Bush administration also come into question, as Sontag notes, because it was not until the photographs were released that the issue of the atrocities was recognized. None of the reports compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by other journalists and humanitarian organizations were ever recognized. In this Sontag does recognize the importance of the photographs, but in doing so also addresses how unfortunate it is that they were the only medium that could attract the administration’s attention even after human rights violations were previously reported in writing: “The pictures will not go away. That is the nature of the digital world in which we live. Indeed, it seems they were necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands…it was photographs that made this all ‘real’ to Bush and his associates” (Sontag). Sontag additionally notes that the horrors portrayed in the photograph are equally if not less shameful than the act of taking the photographs: “…the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken—with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives.”

In the sense that the photographs portray not only the horror of the events but the horror behind the idea that the photographs were taken at all with soldiers posing with the dead bodies and proudly displaying the atrocious acts they forced upon the prisoners, I feel as though Sontag and Libby reach common ground. In “Culture/War,” Libby notes, “…I propose that much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond, but constructed cultural objects whose intelligibility is made possible only within a larger matrix of other signifying practices and the social relations of which they are a part” (44). In this, Libby is conceding that while images are quite powerful themselves, they also hold power in that they are a social construct, not simply something that exists. Someone must have created the images, and in doing so, there must have existed some intention in portraying events that occurred. Thus I agree with both views. I do not believe that photographs should be disregarded; I feel that they have an important role in uncovering what is kept from public sight especially in times of war. However, I also feel that the emphasis placed upon the photographs sometimes distracts from the events they portray and delays necessary actions to prevent the events from reoccurring, especially since the Bush administration seems so intent on covering them up.

Question Three

Images of war, whether positive or not, should not be kept from the viewing public. By limiting what Americans can see, a government only serves to make the masses more ignorant of the goings on of war. If this is the intention of a government, one can see a sense of Nazi and generally totalitarian censorship. If photographs portraying actual events, no matter how disturbing, are kept from the public eye, a government is keeping the truth from its people and is also revoking the photographer’s right to free speech. Although, as noted by Sontag, the Abu Ghraib images were meant to be circulated and thus seem to connote a perverse course of action and promote the abuse of prisoners as a sense of fun, this is all the more reason to allow the public access to them. These photographs raise awareness to the realities of war and reveal to the public that even those we think are serving a noble purpose can do things that are inhuman and monstrous in aspect. As Libby notes in “Culture/War,” “The investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh, for example, sees the photographs in terms of their role in exposing of inhuman and illegal practices that needed to be made public and punished. This view presupposes the neutral capacity to record actual events, but not, as with other commentators, to use images’ supposed neutrality to stand in for a social problem, but rather to bring evidence of the documented events into the public sphere and to call for action in response to the events they record” (44). This view of images focuses on the idea of the ability for photographs to call into question the actions of those in the Abu Ghraib photographs and those who took them and to call for action against such abuses that are unacceptable regardless of whether we are discussing times of war or peace and behaviors of Americans or the enemy. Finally, what is unacceptable is the denial of public display of photographs for the purpose of protecting the actions and decisions of the government. This kind of censorship is outlawed by the first amendment. Sedition against the government should be encouraged in a democratic society so long as there is evidence of the wrongdoings of a government. As noted by Wallis, “…the often-banal JPEGs from Iraq proffer a very different picture: war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture. In this regard, the Abu Ghraib images undercut both of the Bush administration’s high-minded visual strategies in selling the Iraqi War: on the one hand, to suppress all unpleasant or unplanned images…and, on the other hand, to promulgate highly theatrical and carefully scripted photographs of good news…” In order for the public to be well-informed about the actions its government takes, the positive and negative must be equally available. If the freedom to see the truth, regardless of whether or not it supports the government’s decisions, is surrendered, the United States mine as well be run under a totalitarian regime, which would be quite ironic in the context of the supposed intentions to promote democracy in Iraq.