War and Media Network

In War, Image and Legitimacy, Michalski and Gow set out to illustrate the relevance and importance of moving images to contemporary warfare. In particular, using examples from the media and entertainment spheres, they explore the complicated and unpredictable relationship between the public, mass media, political elite, and the search for legitimacy in the lead up to, and during, contemporary war. In this regard, a central aim of this book is to enhance understandings how images can affect both war itself, and our understanding of it.

The book is divided into various sections, each analysing a particular sphere of the media and entertainment industry in which moving images are generated. These include feature fiction films, documentaries and current affairs, TV news, and new technologies (such as the Internet, mobile phones, and other image recording devices). A wide variety of empirical examples are used, ranging from the Former Yugoslavia to Africa, the Middle East and Russia. It is refreshing to see a number of examples from non-English language sources, giving the book greater breadth and depth.

A central proposition of the work is that images, especially moving images, are a weapon of war in their own right and can cause as much devastation – if not more - than military munitions and armaments, partly because it is not possible to predict the results. The logic of this argument is supported by their empirical case studies, for example, the events of Abu Ghraib Further, they state that the ‘reality’ of an event may not seem ‘real’ without accompanying images depicting the event itself. As such, an image both adds legitimacy to an event, but can also elicit responses from viewers that are often powerful, emotional and defying words. The example they use is the images of the collapsing towers of the World Trade Centre to back this thesis. This proposition appears aligned to the notion that the waging of warfare is becoming increasingly politicized, and where victory on the battlefield does not necessarily equate with outright victory. Their reference to the events and images of Somalia that forced an eventual US withdrawal – as one of many examples - would seem to support this idea. Ultimately, their argument is centrally concerned with the issue of legitimacy; who has it and who does not. In the current political climate, democratic countries require consent (or at least passivity) from their populace in order to wage war and legitimacy is a key means of achieving this. For Michalski and Gow, this is all based on the premise that war is a last resort of a state in resolving an issue. I however would argue that it is the perception that all other courses of state action, other than war, have been exhausted by the state. This can be seen in the wake of the Bush administration misleading the public over 900 times in the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Douglass K. Daniel, Study: False Statements Preceded War, Associated Press, 23 January 2008). The need to have the appearance that the last resort was pursued, but the manufacturing of evidence, would suggest that all other options for resolving the conflict were not exhausted.

To some extent War, Image and Legitimacy debunks the idea that the mass media can play the role as an effective Fourth Estate. The authors highlight that there is a certain level of mistrust and tension played out between the mass media and authorities but that the media can still influence audiences and even policy makers. Key to this is the consideration of other factors, such as political priorities and the presence (or absence) of government policy. Events in Africa, such as the Rwandan genocide and current events in Darfur, used by the authors support this case, are viewed as marginalized conflicts when compared to events in the Middle East and Bosnia, which are economically and politically more important. The use of the image of the Bosnian Muslim in the Bosnian Serb concentration camp serves to illustrate not only the power of the image, but also the opportunity to exert influence through the image, especially in the absence of a clearly defined government policy regarding decisions to intervene or not. Taking these points into account, it seems that government’s own interests play a crucial part in how people and states mobilise and react to events.

In addition, Michalski and Gow suggest that PR has little to do with achieving legitimacy or delivering an effective message. However, I would argue that PR is very much part of it - although somewhat overplayed by actors who fail to understand the fundamentals of PR. This is exemplified in the Abu Ghraib scandal where the issue of abuse was raised at a military press conference in January 2004 prior to the photo incident in April 2004. When such a case occurs happens, there will be damage, however the effect of the scandal could be to some degree minimised by the military presenting their case first and effectively disclosing the facts. They will undoubtedly take a short term hit, but it can be possible to turn this into a long term gain. Ultimately, non-truths and lies cannot be sustained over time. To summarize very briefly, War, Image and Legitimacy is an easy and enjoyable read, raising many interesting aspects regarding the relationship between images and war. The authors support their arguments through analysis of a wide variety of examples from different parts of the world. In so doing, they meet their objective of establishing and explaining the importance of moving images in contemporary warfare.

Dr Greg Simons

to top