Image Warfare in the War on Terror

N. Roger

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781349349081, 9780230363885
• eBook ISBN: 9781137297853
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Ciencias computacionales general

Roger examines how developments in new media technologies, such as the internet, blogs, camera/video phones, have fundamentally altered the way in which governments, militaries, terrorists, NGOs, and citizens engage with images. He argues that there has been a paradigm shift from techno-war to image warfare, which emerged on 9/11.

1
Introduction

 

 

This book explores the nature of images in contemporary warfare, addressing the changing ways in which they circulate within society and the impact this has on the conduct of conflict. I argue that a significant shift has occurred in the relationship between images and the media system which enables their circulation and identify this as a shift from a mass communication system to a rhizomatic communication system. This shift is driven by changes in technology and in the ‘communications system’. Technological developments, such as the Internet, blogs, camera/video phones and more, have fundamentally altered the ways in which governments, militaries, terrorists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and citizens engage with images. To employ Manuel Castells’ term, ‘a space of flows’ (Castells, 1989) has opened up and thus has replaced the unidirectional flow of information and images with, in Daya Kishan Thussu’s language, ‘multi-directional flows’ (Thussu, 2007) of information and images. In the context of military action, I theorize this as a move away from the ‘mobilization of images’ (attached to the twentieth-century notion of propaganda and the mass-media society) to the ‘weaponization of images’ (which is attached to the networked/information society connected with new media). The book then sets out to explore this via a number of case studies of events from the war on terror. Across these case studies, I show how war has moved from techno-war¹ to image warfare (thus opening up a new theatre of war) and also how the American and British governments and their militaries are failing to manage image warfare because they still believe that they can ‘control’ images in the rhizomatic condition, whereas al-Qaeda seemingly better understands that images are uncontrollable and subject to unpredictable circulation and remediation in the war on terror.

This idea of controlling the flow of images is, however, not just confined to the twentieth-century notion of propaganda; it is also deeply embedded within theorizations of techno-war (which made its first appearance in the 1991 Gulf War). In conventional wars and against conventional enemies, such as Iraqi and Serbian militaries, American techno-war has proven itself to be a dominant force. However, on 11 September 2001, a new kind of war – image warfare – emerged with al-Qaeda’s coordinated attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and its failed attack on the White House (the United Airlines Flight 93 incident). Techno-war had immediately been replaced; however, the Bush administration’s response was to quickly launch a spectacular techno-war attack against Afghanistan, thinking that it could regain control of the spectacle of war back from al-Qaeda. This was immediately overshadowed by al-Qaeda’s release of a video or image munition to Al Jazeera on 7 October 2001 featuring Osama bin Laden (see Chapter 3), proof indeed, in the words of Paul Virilio, that America ‘are always one war behind … there are not yet any experts in global terrorist warfare’ (Virilio, 2002a: 35, emphasis in original).

Having taken on board Virilio’s judgment that there are currently no experts in global terrorist warfare or in what I term image warfare, I offer an important reassessment of the war on terror. I explore the disjuncture between ‘controlling’ images and understanding the contemporary deterritorialized circulation of images in the rhizomatic condition. As war has now moved on from techno-war to image warfare, so International Relations (IR) needs to do the same and respond to these new security challenges by embracing image warfare rather than merely unsuccessfully adapting techno-war for the challenges of global terrorist warfare. Mainstream IR continues to miss the significance of the shift from techno-war to image warfare. However, Critical International Relations, Critical Security Studies, Critical Terrorism Studies and post-positivist IR theorists have begun to recognize the important role played by images and popular culture in the war on terror – but even these fail sufficiently by themselves to challenge the dominance of techno-war or indeed engage with image warfare. I identify in this book how society has shifted from a mass-media system to a rhizomatic media system and explore the implications for this shift on war (a paradigm shift from techno-war to image warfare). Engaging with literature in the cognate disciplines of Media Studies and Visual Culture presents IR with compelling evidence of the contemporary circulation of images and the implications for contemporary and future war.

To help bridge the gaps between the IR, Media Studies and Visual Culture literatures, I introduce three conceptual terms to the lexicon of IR: ‘image munitions’, ‘counter-image munitions’ and ‘remediation battles’. These are intended to help synthesize the three disciplines and to break new ground in terms of the theorizing of image warfare, rather than merely relying on an updated version of techno-war.

Chapter summary

Chapter 2, ‘Theorizing Image Warfare’, explores the long-standing relationship between war and images, but stresses how in contemporary times this relationship has been fundamentally changed. I show how IR recognizes the important role played by information and images in war, but how it has ultimately failed to account for the recent significant changes in this relationship. America and Britain still believe that they can control the circulation of images in war when the reality is that the circulation of images today is increasingly unpredictable. I define this as a shift from a centralized mass-media model to a deterritorialized rhizomatic media model and highlight the structural changes in war coverage: the Vietnam War (the first television war), the 1991 Gulf War (the first real-time war), the Kosovo conflict (the first Internet war) and finally 11 September 2001 and the war on terror (image warfare). I then discuss the IR literature (specifically the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) literature) and reveal how media and images have been sidelined in discussions about contemporary war in favour of theorizations of technology. I argue that this reinforces the outdated idea that the circulation of information and images can still be controlled in the Internet age. To get a better understanding of the contemporary role of media and images in war, I engage with literature in Media Studies, exploring how society has moved away from a mass-media system (of centralized propaganda, which was dominant in the twentieth century) to a networked/rhizomatic system (of deterritorialized flows of information, which is dominant today) and how new media technologies – such as the Internet, blogs and mobile phones – play an important role. I also examine theories of ‘postmodern war’ as discussed by Jean Baudrillard and Paul Virilio. Baudrillard was initially critical of real-time communication in his response to the 1991 Gulf War, but was forced to rethink his position after the 9/11 attacks; Virilio offers a prophetic glimpse of the deterritorialized information age where new forms of activity and agency are now possible. I then provide a review of the relevant theoretical literature within Media Studies, discussing research by Richard Keeble, Simon Cottle, Andrew Hoskins, Ben O’Loughlin, David D. Perlmutter, Susan D. Moeller and Lilie Chouliaraki, and also exploring different media models: manufacturing consent, media systems, media cascade and media culture. I then turn from Media Studies to research from within Visual Culture, and specifically the work of Barbie Zelizer, John Taylor, David D. Perlmutter, Susan Sontag, W.J.T. Mitchell, Nicholas Mirzoeff, Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites. This field also reveals the complex circulation and remediation of images. To help bridge the gaps between IR, Media Studies and Visual Culture, I also develop three conceptual terms: ‘image munitions’, ‘counter-image munitions’ and ‘remediation battles’. Finally, I discuss the methodology employed in this book.

Chapter 3, ‘Political Communications: Bush, Blair and Bin Laden’, explores a part of the new image warfare theatre of war. I examine political communications – understood as a form of image munition – discussing how the ‘official’ political communications made by leaders are an important instrument in disseminating information from the seat of power to the public in times of war and peace, recognizing the important role of new media technologies in their development. I specifically examine ‘official’ political communications made by American presidents and British prime ministers – President Bush and Prime Minister Blair – in the war on terror and show how this style of address was also adopted by al-Qaeda with Osama bin Laden’s ‘unofficial’ political communications. I then discuss the role of ‘place’, ‘symbolism’ and ‘mimesis’ in these addresses, Andrew Hill’s Lacanian analysis of the bin Laden tapes, Binoy Kampmark’s commentary about the spectre of bin Laden and the circulation of his image munitions in the war on terror. Before drawing attention to a number of interventions which show how bin Laden’s image munitions, since originally being deployed by al-Qaeda, have now been picked up and remediated by new media actors with intentions that are distinct from al-Qaeda. This proves just how unpredictable the flow of images actually is in the rhizomatic condition and how al-Qaeda seemingly has a better understanding of image warfare compared with either America or Britain.

Chapter 4, ‘Suicides’, discusses another important part of the image warfare theatre of war. I start by exploring how suicide terrorism is an effective tactic used by al-Qaeda to gain a military advantage against superior conventional militaries in the war on terror, but also how there is an important symbolic dimension to suicide terrorism. I examine this symbolic dimension, employed by terrorists specifically to produce image munitions about their suicide bombings, with suicide video-wills that allow terrorists to keep control of their attacks for as long as possible. I discuss specifically the bombing of the Canal Hotel in Baghdad on 19 August 2003; the 11 September 2001 terror attacks and the release of counter-image munitions over United Airlines Flight 93 and the 9/11 suicide video-wills; the triple suicide bombing of Firdos Square in Baghdad on 24 October 2005; the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the failed London bombings of 21 July 2005. I also further discuss the circulation of image munitions and counter-image munitions relating to 7/7 with reference to stories of heroism (such as that of Paul Dadge, a London commuter) and the release of suicide video-wills by Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the 7/7 bombers. Finally, I examine a number of interventions produced by new media actors with divergent intentions from those of al-Qaeda, evidence which further underlines the fact that the remediation of image munitions is now unpredictable and beyond the control of specific social groups.

Chapter 5, ‘Executions’, examines another important part of the image warfare theatre of war. To begin with, I discuss three related and symbolically powerful terrorist tactics: hijackings, hostage-takings and hostage executions. I explore how hijackings and hostage-takings are conducted to produce a strong media presence, to reinforce us-versus-them distinctions and to maintain media interest for the duration of the crisis. I similarly explore how hostage executions are carried out for the same reasons as hijackings and hostage-takings but how they are also conducted with the intention of manufacturing and deploying powerful image munitions. I discuss these terrorist tactics with specific reference to plane hijackings pre-9/11, the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, the hostage-taking and execution of Aldo Moro and the Beirut hostage crisis of the 1980s. I then conceptualize and distinguish between two categories of hostage – ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ – and also engage with Jean Baudrillard on hostages and ‘symbolic exchange’, before turning to examine contemporary hostage-takings and executions in the war on terror, specifically: Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley and Alan Johnston. These hostage-takings and executions are all symbolically powerful; this is partly proven by the Johnston hostage-taking but also by the fact that a plot to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier in Birmingham, having been foiled, had its symbolism appropriated by writers and directors in their fictional depictions of the war on terror. Hostage execution image munitions have also been picked up and deployed subsequently by new media actors with intentions that are entirely distinct from al-Qaeda, which is evidence of the uncontrollability of images in the current rhizomatic media system. I explore how executions have been misjudged in the war on terror, especially by America but also by the new Iraqi government. I discuss how although the death images of Uday and Qusay Hussein were released to the media in an attempt to win over the hearts and minds of Iraqis, they were instead picked up and deployed by al-Qaeda against the Bush administration whilst also being picked up and remediated by new media actors with intentions that were entirely distinct from both the Bush administration and al-Qaeda. The same mistakes were again made by the Bush administration, but also by the new Iraqi government, with the transformation of the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein into a media spectacle. Again, this was done to try and win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, but instead it resulted in al-Qaeda picking up and deploying these damaging image munitions against the Bush administration and the new Iraqi government. Since new media actors have also picked up and deployed these Saddam Hussein image munitions with intentions that are distinct from the Bush administration, the new Iraqi government or indeed al-Qaeda, this is proof once again that the spectacle of execution can no longer be controlled in the Internet age.

Chapter 6, ‘Abuses’, discusses another part of the image warfare theatre of war; however, this case study is distinct from those that appear earlier in the text. Rather than examining image munitions that were produced with the specific intention of being weaponized and deployed in the war of images, instead, I examine abuses in the war on terror that were not meant to be made public but which were subsequently weaponized in the war on terror against the Bush administration and the Blair government. I discuss how war abuses have largely remained out of sight but how, when they have been made public, they have quickly been mobilized by anti-war protesters and popular culture. This leads into a discussion of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and when precisely the Abu Ghraib images were transformed into damaging image munitions. I also illustrate this discussion with an examination of a selection of the Abu Ghraib image munitions and also image remediations – produced by new media actors who have deployed the Abu Ghraib image munitions with intentions that are distinct from either the American soldiers who originally shot them or anti-war protesters, NGOs and al-Qaeda who have deployed them. All of this is evidence of the uncontrollable circulation of images in the information age. Attention then turns to discuss General Sir Michael Jackson’s announcement of an investigation into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some British soldiers and how this was immediately followed by the publication of damaging faked prisoner abuse images in the Daily Mirror. This episode has had major implications for discussions about the invisibility/visibility of abuse in the war on terror and about the relationship between real and faked abuse images. I also discuss how Britain eventually released image munitions featuring the real abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some British soldiers at Camp Breadbasket. This is further evidence that Britain misunderstands image warfare and still believes that it can control the spectacle of abuse in the war on terror. In conclusion, I consider the so-called ‘own goal effect’ of abuse image munitions in the war on terror and the early attempts by President Barack Obama to promote transparency, to bring to an end the invisible war on terror and to exorcise Bush’s legacy.

2
Theorizing Image Warfare

Introduction

This chapter examines the contemporary transformations of the production, distribution and reception of mediated information: a shift from a mass-media model of communication to what I describe as a networked/rhizomatic model of communication. It also reviews the RMA, Media Studies and Visual Culture literatures via a discussion of Baudrillard, Virilio and postmodern war. On the basis of these readings, I then develop three key conceptual terms: ‘image munitions’, ‘counter-image munitions’ and ‘remediation battles’. These concepts help to bridge the gaps between IR, Media Studies and Visual Culture, and also draw attention not only to the ways in which images enter the theatre of war and are contested by different media actors, but also to the historically specific way in which images are produced and consumed. I finish with a discussion of the book’s methodology.

Media actors, objects and subjects

Concerning myself with media does not mean that my interest is restricted to a single phenomenon or activity, but rather with relationships between parties to forms of communicative transfer. To understand the place of media in, for instance, the ‘war on terror’, I need, then, to attend to the relationship between a diverse range of institutions, persons, groups and so on. Perhaps the most straightforward way to begin grasping something of the (changing) quality and tone of these relationships is to think in terms of media actors, media objects and media subjects. Here, ‘media actors’ refers to both the persons and the institutions dedicated to the refining of the raw material of events and its conversion into ‘news’. What they produce are media objects or texts (written, audio, visual, etc.) which are then consumed by media subjects in various ways.

The actions of media actors are governed by a variety of forces. This includes of course the perceived interests of media institutions, which may also shape the information that media actors produce. Media institutions are generally if not exclusively commercial and reliant on advertising revenue. They are therefore shaped to some extent by the need to meet market objectives, and perhaps also by public relations advisors and advertisers. But the behaviours of media actors are also shaped by their own internal routines and traditions: tacit as well as explicit rules which shape what information can and cannot be produced and shown by a media institution. In addition, they are influenced by official, social and governmental regulations, a breach of which may occasion censure. Finally, they are also influenced by the kind of technology that is available. Without the aid of technology, raw information about events taking place in the world cannot be reported. Marshall McLuhan captures this perfectly with his statement: the medium is the message. Technology is therefore a vehicle of communication, but not one that is entirely neutral in its effects. At its simplest, the processes of media communication may be conceived as simply involving the formation of a message sent to a receiver. However, the history of media theory is the history of the increasing complexity of such a model of communication, and the contemporary developments in media and communication technologies have had a profound effect on who or what can be a media actor.

Objects are the products produced by media actors and disseminated to audiences. The nature of these objects may be greatly shaped by some of the same forces that affect media actors, including commercial interests, routines, traditions, regulations and technologies. For instance, famously, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky identified five primary news filters which, they argue, shape the selection and presentation of news material: ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak and anti-communism (Herman and Chomsky, 1994: 2). But in addition to these ideological forces, what is important to note is the extent to which media outputs are packaged objects created in line with rules not only of institutions but also of genre and form that are then inserted into the news-cycle via a news broadcast and then circulated to audiences. Indeed, the news broadcast itself is a genre invented by media actors for the dissemination of objects to audiences, but which now defines the ways in which actors make and produce news. But these news filters and genres are changing under the pressure of new technologies. News broadcasts appear on all media platforms, and although the format of the news broadcast and the kind of objects used will vary depending on the platform and the technology at the disposal of the media actor, what is consistent across all news broadcasts is the use of inserted objects to help convey messages to a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Theorizing Image Warfare
• 3 Political Communications: Bush, Blair and Bin Laden
• 4 Suicides
• 5 Executions
• 6 Abuses
• 7 Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index