Of course, there is nothing good in a war. Ukraine reminds us daily of the useless, gratuitous and appalling waste of a conflict between forces organized for the express purpose of killing. Nevertheless, sometimes there are unintended consequences in a war that later can lead to enlightening insights and breakthroughs despite the horror. It is paradoxical, for example, that there were notable advances in science and medicine in times of war — I am thinking of the organizational and sanitary genius of Florence Nightingale during the war in Crimea in the nineteenthand century, where she completely remade and redesigned nursing, hospital protocols and plans, and saved the lives of not only thousands of soldiers, but also countless future civilians.
Moreover, one can hope that the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation will give ordinary people, as well as politicians, food for thought on the cruelty that could have been avoided with a little knowledge of the reality of war. Unfortunately, this is not always possible, as the politicians involved generally have no interest in citizens having access to the battlefield, directly or through the media. Seeing corpses piled up and mutilated or buildings gutted is not the best way to encourage people to support the ambitions of warlords like Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush.
Consequently, much of the war damage is hidden from non-participants as the authorities fear negative reactions. In this area, it is increasingly propaganda that dominates perceptions in the United States and elsewhere. After its defeat in Vietnam, the US military was largely content to blame the press for supposedly demoralizing the people by showing them up close the devastating effects of combat on soldiers on both sides and Vietnamese civilians. The atrocious methods used by the US military — napalm, saturation bombing, massacres of civilians — have been shocking enough, but to see so many dead young Americans on the evening news was too much, according to the great minds of the Pentagon.
Since then, the strategy of any military campaign planned in Washington has been, as far as possible, to hide the dead and wounded by denying access to journalists. This policy facilitated the task of warmongers beginning in the invasion of Grenada in 1983, in 1989 during the invasion of Panama, in 1991 during the first Gulf War, during the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and again during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The response of the American media during this assault on press freedom was weak, and they ceded almost entirely the right to report on wars fought in the name of a supposedly sovereign people. We just have to look at the Newscast of Radio-Canada on March 23, 2003 to realize the absence of good reporting in the United States on the fight in Iraq and the domination of pro-war propaganda by the Bush administration. That evening, the Quebec team shone, refusing to be manipulated when the American army suffered considerable losses, showing the videos broadcast by Al Jazeera of dead bodies and American prisoners killed and captured by Saddam’s army. Hussein.
the Newscast reported the death or imprisonment of at least 12 American soldiers (in fact, there were 28 dead), so “this time, the shock and amazement are on the side of the Americans”, declared Michaëlle Jean before passing the microphone to Bernard Drainville, who summed up the stakes perfectly: “It’s the nightmare of the American people — to see the lifeless bodies of their young soldiers, four in total, and to see that other GIs have been captured alive. »
And how ! Following the images of dead bodies and terrified prisoners, US General John Abizaid was seen denouncing the Arab TV network for broadcasting “disgusting” videos. “I am very disappointed that you [montriez] these images of our military… I would ask others [réseaux] not to do the same… their distribution is in my opinion totally unacceptable. Drainville continued, “So far, the major US television networks seem to be following the Pentagon’s directive” with one small exception from CNN.
But suddenly, thanks to Putin, war is back on television and on the front page: military and civilian corpses scattered all over the world’s screens; families of the victims in tears. However, the motivation to allow transparency in Ukraine is also based on propaganda, as President Zelensky has an interest in presenting a bloody and martyred country in order to build international support. At the same time, he has no interest in his sympathizers testifying to the mistreatment of Russian prisoners, so far whispered, but not verified.
A visual education on war is in order to avoid future wars. However, the screen, even high definition, is limited. The great filmmaker Samuel Fuller, a combat veteran, explained the challenge: “Making a real war movie would occasionally fire bullets at the audience from behind the screen during a battle scene. »
John R. MacArthur is editor of Harper’s Magazine. His column returns at the beginning of each month.