The
effects of images on public perception have changed the norms of journalism.Images
of dying soldiers have a negative effect on military mission regardless of the
reason for entering the conflict. The reluctance by many governments
in participating in humanitarian intervention, especially in Africa and the
Middle East, can be traced to the portrayal of dead soldiers in the media.
Bleeding
Soldiers:
The
portrayal of soldiers in conflict zones directly impacts public
perception. Images of soldiers in combat are inherently violent,
but public perception of conflict and the realities of war are not shown by
many US media outlets. When images of bloodied, battle weary US soldiers are
shown in the media, the public reaction has been to portray the conflict in a
negative light. In Mogadishu the images of US soldiers being dragged
through the streets caused public outcry and depicted the inherent
“backwardness” of Africa.This
followed the narrative that Africa is a wild and un-tamable land which does not
accept western influence without the understanding of their colonial past. The
images of Mogadishu instigated public outcry and caused the premature
withdrawal of US troops, who entered to prevent a humanitarian
catastrophe. The negative portrayal of African intervention has had
a cascading effect on how the US conducts humanitarian intervention in Africa.
Since
the events in Mogadishu and the images depicting the conflict have been shown, there has been
reluctance for US intervention for humanitarian purposes in Africa and the
Middle East. The reason for the reluctance draws on preconceived
notions of the region and rarely takes into account the actual events that are
occurring. For many citizens of the United States there is a
predetermined image of backwardness and that Africa and the Middle East are
distinctly “different” from a cultural, historical, and social standpoint. The
image of the African savage and the Arab terrorist dominate the collective
conscience US citizens. This understanding has been established throughout
history through “white man’s burden” and the idea that democracy is the agent
of democracy and positive social change. In recent years the
media has helped reiterate and affirm the notion of African savagery and Middle
Eastern radicalism through rhetorical and historical content manufacturing.
Justified
Intervention:
There
are several cases in Africa and the Middle East where humanitarian intervention
was justified, yet there was little action by the US or the UN to get involved.
The lack of action and unwillingness of the US to intervene in Africa can be
linked to the images of dead US soldiers in Mogadishu and the affirmation that
Africans are savages and unwilling to accept western influence because of the
association of the West with colonization. The Darfur genocide, the Somali
refugees, and the revolving conflicts that plague Africa give enough onuses to
justified intervention. The problem with intervention comes, not only with the
images of dead American soldiers being dragged through the street, but with who
does the intervening. The
UN is largely ineffectual with regards to humanitarian intervention because of
the reluctance of the Chinese to pass any resolution regarding humanitarian
intervention. The African Union is funded and supplied by the Nigerian
government, and there is a fear of regional hegemony from other African nations
which makes humanitarian intervention difficult to justify.
Lethal
Combination:
The
combination of negative images of dead and bloodied US soldiers being dragged
through the streets of Mogadishu and the negative context of Western
intervention and colonization make African and Middle Eastern humanitarian
intervention a social, political and economic drain. There
is a reluctance to intervene in some regions because of the preconceived[1]
[1] Dauber,
C. “The Shots Seen ‘Round the World: The Impact of The Images Of Mogadishu on
American Military Operations,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment