The Tyranny of Imagery
Liberators. Policymakers must better understand the power of imagery. During the invasion of Iraq, journalists beamed home footage of the American Army winning victories, and the images generated enormous public support. Embedding reporters with the military worked extremely well, yielding gratifying scenes of the lightning-fast drive on Baghdad. We were truly portrayed as liberators. But then came the daily pictures of looting, suicide bombing, chaos, violence, and rioting-the worst of which were the photos of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. In a trice, America was perceived as an unfeeling, occupying power. Public support wilted both here and in Iraq. Throughout the Muslim world, our efforts have been distorted to suggest that we are anti-Muslim. This is a travesty, considering that our soldiers in Iraq are giving their lives to stop Muslims from killing Muslims. And how can television fail to remind the world that America defended Muslim populations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait-not to mention the tens of billions of dollars of assistance to Egypt and the productive relations we have with governments from Nigeria to Indonesia?
Violence is not the only story in Iraq. What can be done to redress the balance-and not have policy driven simply by the emotive power of so much negative imagery? Policymakers must think of the logistics of presenting the positive as much as they do about the logistics of the battlefield. This is not a question of propaganda but of portraying the other realities that television, left to its own devices, may well ignore. In a dangerous war zone, journalists need help to document human-interest stories-families who lost loved ones under Saddam, villages restored to life, rebuilding, the exciting progress in the schools. Image scenarios must be as comprehensively planned as battlefield tactics. This will require a radical new approach. Every appropriate military unit could be equipped with a video camera to take digital pictures that would be made available to the press. They would have to be scrupulously honest and professional in captioning: The picture takers would be selected not by rote but by ability, with a separate media spokesperson at the Pentagon.
What else can our government do?
First: We must seek to maximize our ability to operate indirectly, training an indigenous army to undertake responsibility we normally would have shouldered ourselves. The smaller the footprint of an American military deployment today, the greater the chance of success. Second: The president and his senior aides shouldn't hesitate to complain to the leaders of the Middle East, where the news media are often government controlled and polluted with anti-American sentiment that reflects nothing of our performance and generosity. Third: We must refrain from attacking Islam. If we wish to describe terrorism, let's describe it as an attack on all civilians and all civilized life without regard to race or religion or nationality. Fourth: We must select for senior posts abroad those American diplomats who have the capacity to engage in public outreach and speak the local language and reward them for doing this well.
In this global war on terrorism, there will be no quick victories and few demonstrable successes. We are involved in a long-term process, but it is better to get it right than do it fast.
advertisement