9/11 From Space: Militarized Nationalism's "Isolated and Unique View"

As the ten-year anniversary of September 11 approaches, visual culture is deployed for militarized nationalist agendas. In particular, the linking of aerial views to discourses of the "never before seen," and "unique" promise new perspectives on iconic images that we have seen repeatedly over the span of a decade, recuperating cosmopolitan fantasies of a world united in its endorsement of US supremacy.

For example, today The Huffington Post reports that NASA has released footage from the International Space Station (ISS) of Manhattan on September 11 ten years ago as the World Trade Towers burned and collapsed. In an embedded short video, the narrator states that only three men had an "isolated and unique view" on that infamous day; the Commander of the ISS, American astronaut Frank Culbertson, and two Russian cosmonauts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/september-11-attack-nasa-astronaut-frank-culbertson_n_953615.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

In the web post that includes the short video clip (from "Buzz:60") as well as a longer 12 minute composite of interviews, video broadcasts, and image data, The Huffington Post mostly quotes the ISS Expedition 3 commander, Culbertson, who describes his thoughts at the time and afterwards (the cosmonauts are not mentioned again). The post also cites a NASA press release, "NASA Remembers September 11," which covers a wider set of issues than the newly released footage from the ISS. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/features/sept11.html

But the images from space do important work in the nationalist project of commemoration. Referring to Culbertson as "the only American off the planet," the NASA site explains: "Expedition 3 Commander Frank Culbertson was aboard the International Space Station at the time of the attacks, and the only American on the crew. As soon as he learned of the attacks, he began documenting the event in photographs because the station was flying over the New York City area. He captured incredible images in the minutes and hours following the event. From his unique vantage point in space, he recorded his thoughts of the world changing beneath him."

In a radio broadcast from space soon after the attacks, Culbertson tells listeners that New York city "still looks very beautiful from space..." and "the country still looks good." New Yorkers are told that "your city still looks great from up here." Culbertson goes on to say that seeing the smoke plume from the wreckage of the towers "was like seeing a wound in the side of your country." These views from 200 miles above the island of Manhattan were "a privilege," according to Culbertson, " a fantastic vantage point" and a "viewpoint that I will always be blessed with..." 

The views themselves, as is almost always the case, do not show us anything particularly new. NASA has released still images from space of the sites of the attacks long before this.

What is arguably new is the raw moving image data spliced onto documentary style "talking head" interviews with Commander Culbertson and a somewhat strange ending clip from a recent ISS crew describing about the "Flags for Heroes and Families" program, which brought 6,000 small US flags into space and then distributed them in commemorative packets to relatives of those who died in the attacks. The two US astronauts flank their mostly silent Russian commander, while stating that "from space we have a unique view of our planet." "We see a world with no borders." The international space station exemplifies, they claim, how "people of different nations can come together in space."

These statement follow their description of the special symbolic meaning of the American flag, a sentiment echoed by then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin who is quoted as saying, "The American flags are a patriotic symbol of our strength and solidarity, and our Nation's resolve to prevail."

Reflecting on the "unique" view from above that he witnessed on September 11, 2001, Commander Culberston states: "We don't see any boundaries out here in space." "Followed by "America is the greatest country in the world." And then, taking out a trumpet that he had taken on board the ISS, the commander takes a deep breath and plays 'Taps." 

[I have written a longer piece on 9/11 visual culture--"'A Rare and Chilling View': Aerial Photography as Biopower in the Visual Culture of '9/11'" in Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture 11:2 (2011). Launched June 30, 2011 at http://reconstruction.eserver.org/112/Kaplan_Caren.shtml]

Viewing the Aerial Images of bin Laden's Compound

The aerial imagery of the bin Laden "secret" compound in Abbottabad seems generic enough. We've grown accustomed to this kind of documentation that accompanies any major news story--flooding in the Midwest, a police chase, a marketplace bombing, etc. We have become so accustomed to the verification of a site by an aerial shot that it has become normalized as a way of seeing. This view offers something important for television news in an era of 24 hour consumer demand--satellite images are plentiful and can fill time and space in a medium that needs more and more product. But aerial images offer more than just a way to convey geographical certainty ("this news happened here"). The history of aerial imagery suggests that people had to learn to read the view from above. Indeed, satellite images are hard to decipher. Vertical perspective makes everyday topographies and architectures look strange, flat. If the broad sweep of the aerial image provides the possibility of context, without an understanding of each component contained within the photograph there is no way to achieve the understanding that such comparison might bring about. For this reason, aerial images in the newspaper and on the televised news are usually labeled. The label pins it down. And so we believe the labels.

The British Newspaper, The Telegraph, published an aerial image titled "Osama bin Laden: the compound in Abbottabad where the al-Qaeda leader lived" that shows a remote image cropped to give us a relative understanding of the distance between the Pakistan military academy (so often referred to on newscasts as the equivalent of the US military academy, West Point) and the site where bin Laden, his family, and close associates were living. Captioned arrows point out exactly where the structures are positioned in the image. The distance is noted as approximately 500 yards.

On May 3, a site titled "the Sociable" published what they titled as "An updated aerial view of the suspected hideout of Al Qaeda's founder Osama bin Laden," an image linked to an advance preview of what Google Earth will allow to be viewed after their next update. This image was taken by satellite in May 2010.

Another view circulating in the week after the Navy Seal raid is a closeup cropped from the famous "Situation Room"--it shows aerial imagery of the compound peeking out from under other materials. Here is the entire photo:

 Here is a cropped version (from the Ogle Earth blog):

The same blog (which I recommend to digital map junkies and other fellow travelers) posted a closeup of an image released by GeoEye of the Abbottabad compound just after the raid, clearly showing the blackened results of the burned helicopter (see helpful red arrow):

Over the next few posts, I'd like to compare these images to notable aerial views from the "war on terror" as well as previous conflicts. Aerial images have played an important role in representing truth and accuracy for geopolitical as well as journalistic purposes. Yet, what is "true" during warfare is not always immediately transparent. The aerial image does a certain kind of work. Like all photographs, the construction of the image--its intensely mediated process--is almost never what we notice. Instead, we think we see the world below us in precise, if flattened, form. A kind of truth value in uncertain times, located and therefore seemingly known.

Aerial Views and Political Assassination

The media discourse surrounding the assassination of Osama bin Laden motivates me to get this blog started. Today's the day. I work on the visual culture of militarization; in particular, aerial views. My work stretches back to the late 18th century and moves through the modern period to the present. In the case of OBL and his violent demise in a Navy Seal operation, aerial imagery plays a significant role in the representation of the events. Here are a few of my thoughts thus far.

As we have seen in many recent examples, the uses of technologies in the age of the "war on terror" are viewed in contradictory ways by mainstream media and opinion pundits. On the one hand, digital technologies are believed to offer a powerful tool for delivering scopic mastery. That is, there is widespread belief that seeing farther--both widely and more narrowly into places that have been invisible or inaccessible--will bring about more effective results. This belief motors investment in numerous military technologies that offer enhanced visual capabilities both as part of the actual operation of the weaponry and also for recording and surveying the results of the operation. On the other hand, there is a widespread distrust of technology that looks askance at invasive techniques or that mistrusts imagery in general as too easily faked or inherently deceptive. In the tension between these two sets of attitudes there are innumerable complicated practices and ambivalent ideas that work themselves out in all kinds of ways that we need to explore more fully.

Another primary contradictory discourse in circulation these days in this regard involves the use of mobile technologies in particular. In relation to the "war on terror," when the US media perceives that mobile technologies might be in use by groups that they had imagined to be outside of modern capitalism or operating under more "primitive" conditions (such as fundamentalist groups in rural areas), the cognitive dissonance reaches heightened levels. In this case, the divide between "modern" and traditional" people structures the discussion of technology in ways that do not reflect the ways in which mobile technologies are in use on a global level.

What I have noticed over the last two days of spectacle coverage of the OBL assassination (and there is so much to say here--this is just a little bit on the visual technologies angle) is that both contradictory arenas are in full play. Thus, the depiction of the "secret compound" in Pakistan situated it as suspiciously outside modern communications practices--it was devoid of internet or telephone connections. Meanwhile, the US military has been posed as the deployer of a veritable smorgasbord of technologies. In an interesting article in the Huffington Post online, Amy Lee mentions the following technologies in use in the OBL "Takedown": surveillance of phone calls, remote sensing satellite imagery, facial recognition biometrics, DNA analysis, and "tweets" as well as "highly advanced and still-classified technology" that, vaguely, transforms "bits of information into actionable intelligence." I can't wait for the latter gizmo to trickle down! Anyway, in vanquishing the barbarian foe, appropriately code-named "Geronimo," the lack of communications technologies in the "compound" serves as a sign of weakness as well as cunning. And the spectacular display of digital warfare and forensic analysis signaled nationalist supremacy--you can almost hear the chest thumping in triumph.

As for my first point, that the belief that scopic mastery will trump almost any other tactic is one of the primary foundations of contemporary warfare--the utilization of "Forward Looking Infrared" or FLIR (a heat sensing imaging technology) as well as intensive aerial surveillance in the OBL assassination underscores the dominance of visual intelligence. Views from the air are powerfully revelatory, usually over time. Aerial reconnaissance relies on patterns of similarity and difference that become intelligible through comparison. The truth status of aerial reconnaissance seems to be unassailable. Yet, like anything that relies on human sight, the history of the practice is filled many examples of ambiguity and errors. However, as a rule, public relations (or propaganda) doesn't embrace ambiguity. We will see more aerial images offered as "proof" of operational necessity and effectiveness over the next few days and weeks as the aftermath of this event unfolds. I'll have more to say about this soon.

So, this short comment begins a conversation I am looking forward to having with those of you I already do and do not know. If you are interested in the visual culture of militarization, security state technologies, air power, and the history of stealth, deception, and truth value in relation to visual representation of war, I look forward to hearing from you. Guest posts welcome!

Image source telegraph.co.uk