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 |
The appearance of the ultimate example of history being writeen by the victors, also known as 'Zero Dark Thirty' gives new relevance to this piece, particularly as it seems you had a copy of the script long before it was written! Most of what you mention here appears in the film, from the codename 'Geronimo', to the use of satellite imagery and advanced visual technologies and the conspicuous lack of modern technology in the compound itself (the vast, if old-fashioned 'computer room' notwithstanding), and of course a huge helping of the patriotic chest-thumping you described. And yet, with all this available technology, including soldiers bristling with every optical device known to man to the point where they look like mad professors with lenses of every kind protruding from beneath army helmets, the entire proof we have that the whole incident ever took place as described or even at all is the fact that they say it did!
ReplyDeleteThis piece of... filmmaking then, which seems to owe more to the teachings of Goebbels than Strasberg, is now, and forever more, the official account of the events as far as the average US citizen is concerned. That version will no doubt include the diligent photo-taking and the retrieval of the ketchup-splattered corpse, as that is what the film portrays, making no mention of the incredibly thoughtful 'burial at sea' undertaken by the religiously sensitive military shortly after spraying bullets into every body over age ten. Remarkable that they were able to spare every child in the compound, and most of the women, yet bringing back the elderly villain even partially alive was clearly impossible, so much so that it wasn't considered. 'Wanted, Dead or Alive"? well, maybe that was too many options.