Category: Iraq War

Introduction

Iraq war 2003 is considered as the 2^nd Gulf war. In 2001, when George Bush became the president, chances of war in Iraq grew rapidly as Bush administration accused Iraq of producing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq countered this allegation, but could not stop the US from pushing the issue further. Afterwards, the war started on March 20, 2003 in which US was supported by around 40 countries. The power was taken from Saddam in just few days but the effects of the war can still be seen after 9 years (Fitzgerald, 2011).

Coverage by Gulf News

Most of the articles in Gulf News cover the destruction that the world has seen as a result of this war that was never desired by people of Iraq. The poverty level has gone up sharply as benefits provided by Saddam’s government certainly stopped after his demise. According to an article published in Gulf news on February 4, 2012, there were around 100,000 Iraqis killed as a result of bombing and numerous others have died in other violence and sectarian attacks (Gulf News, 2012).

The Humanitarian Group Relief International estimates that 10% of the women are widower and are leading households in Iraq. Another article in the Gulf News also covers the stories regarding the torture faced by the prisoners in the occupied country from the attacking alliance, which is a clear violation of human rights and the UN constitution (Gulf News, 2010).

Coverage by Washington Post

Washington Post started to give coverage to the Iraq war since the inception of the debate on Iraq in the US Congress. Later the resolution was passed to attack Iraq by the US government. The article titled ‘Hussain’s Baghdad Falls’, designates Saddam a ruthless leader. It holds Saddam responsible for spreading poverty and fear in the country for decades. The article clearly justifies actions of the US government.

Another articles placed in the Washington Post on December 10, 2011 states consequences of US war against Iraq. It mentions that the people perceive the US army as the killer, not the defender, and they are certainly against the long term presence of the US army in their Iraq. The article further mentions that around 92,614 people were killed by the US army from March 2003 to March 2008, but exactly how many Iraqis were killed may never be known (Sly, 2005).

Coverage by Azzaman Newspaper

The views covered by the Iraqi newspapers is quite different from that published in Washington Post however, there are similarities with those of Gulf News. The news paper covered the loss as a resultant of the war including the loss of killing the innocent citizen, destruction to infrastructure and the economy as whole.

Moreover, it talked about the effects of war on the control of oil rich region where Kurds do not allow national army to make any interference. This region which borders with Turkey has been the root of conflict between Iraq and Turkey which is leading to imbalance in the region and could lead to civil war within Iraq (Abdulsalam, 2012).

Conclusion

The Gulf News and Azzaman have presented the actual picture of the condition of Iraq since the inception of the war. They have covered the loss sustained by the people as well as their perception regarding this war.

The Washington Times, on the other hand, has tried to defend the vicious acts of the US government. It blames Saddam Hussain for all that is happening in Iraq and further, an impression has been created that the US government is being helpful to the people by financially supporting them.

Reference List

Abdulsalam, F. (2012). War over oil and wealth in Iraq. Azzaman. Web.

Fitzgerald, P. (2011). Iraq War Summary. The finer times. Web.

Gulf News. (2010). Prosecute those Involved in Iraq War. Gulf news. Web.

Gulf News. (2012). Iraq war widows face government apathy. Gulf news. Web.

Sly, L. (2005). Civilian killings created insurmountable hurdle to extended U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Washington Post. Web.

Since the war in Iraq started, it has caused a lot of cost the U.S. government both economically and socially. Starting with the initial mixed reaction about the war in Iraq, this still draws reactions from many people in the world even from the United States itself. This cost has been counted on many dimensions.

Many people have looked at the economic cost of the war. Since the war started, it is estimated that it has cost the United States about $1 trillion. This is predicted to cause a heavy burden to the tax payers. This goes to keeping the more than 190,000 combat soldiers operating in Iraq and for reconstruction of damages of the war. Already United States has spent more than $439 billion by the end of last year in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also estimated that the country will spend more on treatment of the wounded soldiers. (Bender, 2007)

But perhaps the United States has more by the dead bodies that continue to be flied for burial in their home soil. It is paying costly by its fallen soldiers. Figures released this year shows that already about 28870 American soldiers have been wounded in the war. It is also recorded that more than 3,000 have died in the war since the war began. Perhaps few people have ever sat and thought about the human cost of war and many of us just looks at the soaring figures that the congress approves for the war. But perhaps the great human suffering has been on the Iraq people where it is estimated that 1,165,204 Iraqis have died since the war began. (Griffs, 2008)

Every time the fallen soldiers are lifted to the U. S. they are received with sorrowful and crying relatives. Many of them cannot comprehend why their loved ones had to die for no cause. But for all this time the best Americans can get from their leaders is that one should be ready to die for the love of their country. It is good to understand that, one can express the love for ones country if there is a justifiable reason to fight for the country. Do we ever think of fathers who leave their young sons and daughters? Will these children ever forgive the United States government for robbing them their loved fathers and mothers? (Stephen, 2007)

We all acknowledge that the war has brought a lot of suffering in many families in the United States. The emotional suffering that these families are going through will take years to subside and the wound will take a long time to heal. How will their children grow without their fathers and mothers? Who will take that burden of bringing up these children? We all agree that no amount of monetary compensation can heal these families and restore their hopes in life. In deed this war has caused a lot of human suffering and disruption of normal life for many families.

This human suffering does not take toll only in the families. It is also affecting the soldiers. According to a UPI report, it has been observed that 1 out of 10 soldiers from the Army’s hospital in Europe were suffering from mental problems. All these soldiers were from war on terror in Iraq. A data from Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany shows that 8 percent to 10 percent of about 12,000 soldiers from war in Iraq had mental problems.

This shows that more soldiers were evacuated from the war due to mental problems. How will these people recover for the wounds inflicted by the war? It is clear that this has not been a normal war but it appears to be a ruthless war with many implications to the soldiers fighting on the soil of Iraq. Many soldiers have suffered from brain and spinal injuries. (Wheeler, 2007)

References

Bender, B. (2007): Analysis say war could cost $1 trillion: Budget Office Sees Effect on Taxpayers for Decade. The Boston Globe.

Griffs, M. (2008): Casualties in Iraq: The Human Cost of Occupation. Anti War Highlights.

Stephen, A. (2007). Iraq: The Hidden Cost of the War. New Statesman.

Wheel, W. T. (2006): How many US troops are really in Iraq? How much is the war in Iraq costing? Counterpunch Newsletter.

Introduction

The Iraq war exhibits significant elements of realism where two countries engage in war in the name of political freedom and behind doors seeking economic resources. Even if the approaches may be different, what such parties really seek is protection of their interest. According to Brown (190) realism is measured by power politics reserved in military capacity and force followed by dominance of one actor in seeking interest through coercion or manipulation. In the Iraq war, realism is best exhibited when the United States made efforts to protect Kuwait which had a significant hand in restoring and growing the United States economy through cross-business. This paper advances to illustrate the Iraq war citing important events and illustration that portray realism in bid of reaching ones interest. In the conclusion the paper touches on the flaws of realism theory such as pessimism from the view of human affairs at the global arena and its inability to explain the boundaries or limits in achieving government interests in foreign land.

The Iraq War

On Black Monday of October 1987 a collapse in the stock market in USA took place causing the American economy to go into recession in the 1990s. The ultimate effect trickled down to other countries that had tight economic relations with the United States such as Canada, Australia and United Kingdom. The difficult part was the American economists, financiers and the government try to comprehend and mitigate the destruction of the recession which had adversely hit all sectors of the economy. Nevertheless, the Americans began having a weak economy which means the defence forces of the country also grew weaker and opened more loopholes where the enemy can strike. USA’s administration had to do something extraordinary to bypass the financial difficulties which are the core component of every government that seeks eternal sovereignty (Wagner 3).

There was definitely more than one option for the US to enhance their economy and have it well maintained. However, the best choices had the biggest costs. In this respect, the government approached this problem by taking up resources which defined the country’s wealth and heritage. With this, it would diversify its investments in high yields and overtake other countries in terms of economic growth and development. While this rattling was taking place at the American governmental level, Iraq was floating in immense wealth and increasingly growing powerful. However, Iraq was invading one of the USA’s main allies that are a very supportive country (Kuwait). Kuwait is known for its wealth of economic resources too. Thus, The USA decided to protect its interests in Kuwait backed by four major reasons. It is quite clear that the manifestation of the United States to protect Kuwait is because of its interest in the country rather than the reality of Kuwait being just an ally to the nation.

Firstly, there is no doubt that the relations between Arabs and Persian had been very unsecured along history as wars used to take place between them on religious and ethical basis continuously. According to the theory and notion of Realism, this approach is based on power politics, which is the capacity of one actor to prevail in a conflict of interests with other actors, normally through force, sanction, coercion or manipulation (Brown, 198). It is often measured by military capacity and force. Thus, U.S.A took advantage of these conflicts by fertilizing the ground for the Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) to take over the Islamic peaceful revolution happening in Iran during the 1970s because the revolution there tore the structure of one of the biggest American agents in middle east at that time which was named the Shah regime (King of Persia). Even though the Iraqi regime was a highly debt-ridden country after the war, and even though they were confronting social problems due to the destruction of the war caused the Iraqi people, Saddam has decided to confront the Kuwaiti army that has almost no weight in terms of military measurements.

After a bloody war that presumed eight years, the Iraqi regime became stronger as USA and some gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E and Kuwait) supported the war financially and politically. Saddam Hussein then, decided to invade Kuwait which is a wealthy country regarding the oil resources available there, without accounting for the Americans who were direct beneficent of Kuwait’s oil. That invasion came under the excuse of that Kuwait used to be an Iraqi territory before its independence in 1932 from the United Kingdom who invaded the countries after world war one. Besides this excuse, Iraq asked Kuwait to forgive the huge debts owed but Kuwait rejected (National Security Archive 4). It is quite clear that in realism, the State is the main actor in the global arena and as being sovereign acts such as autonomous entity, while the global arena lives under ‘state of anarchy’, without higher authority than states. The most important interest of the state is National-Security.

Secondly, Iraq itself has the fifth biggest oil reserves in the world according a study achieved in 2012, which made the U.S.A more eager to control Iraq’s oil. However, The U.S’s eagerness to manipulate the world’s resources is not a hidden truth anymore as they have fixed contracts with gulf countries of offering them national protection versus purchasing oil at cheap prices. This control over the gulf countries oil formed a desire for the American administration to control the Iraqi one too, especially that they found it possible after their experiences with gulf countries

Thirdly, Iraq had been an ally of the Soviet Union and there was a history of friction with the US and has been always a target for the US to weaken the Soviet ally presence in Middle East.

Fourthly and finally, during the gulf war Saddam Hussein has bombarded some Saudi Arabian targets to press on the royal regime there to accept Iraq’s demand of forgiving its heavy debts. At this time, and until today, Saudi Arabia has been maintaining tight relationship with the US regime. Therefore the threat of Saddam Hussein to America’s biggest source of oil was unbearable which caused the US to interfere directly to draw limits for Saddam’s invasion to Kuwait which was planned to continue to invade Saudi Arabia afterwards. The inability of the armies of the nation to secure the situation translated in the failure of many Arabs heads of governments and kingdoms to get victory against Saddam. This proved difficult as one moved to towards 1998, which was marked by massive size of Iraq military. At the closing times of the wars between Iraq and Iran, large armies had been built in the world. In this respect, the Iraq army constituted of about 1,000,000 standing soldiers with the exception of about seven hundred thousand paramilitary militaries. As indicated by John Childs and André Courvoisier, in increasing numbers, the army of Iraq was able to field over 5,000 tanks, 500 combat helicopters as well as 240 combat fighting jets.

This narration illustrates the concept of realism where interests are important. So with all these interests America had in Middle East, it found itself concerned in the incursions happening there and that the consequences of these incursions will reflect negative impacts against their interest or at least will form tangible threats that can harm there wants from that area in the world and to put an end for the Iraqi spreading in Middle East. Although the realism approach explains clearly the actions taken during the war, little is done to effect some flaws. In this respect, realism is disadvantaged as a pessimistic approach from the view of human affairs at the global arena. This is also because realism cannot explain institutions such as UN, or the acts of other corporations that forces countries to go beyond their National-Borders interests.

Conclusion

This narration illustrates the concept of realism where interests are important to the sovereignty of any nation. However, in reality, these interests have to be taken by force, sanction and other military ways in other foreign lands.

Thus, U.S.A took advantage of these conflicts by fertilizing the ground for the Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) to take over the Islamic peaceful revolution happening in Iran during the 1970s because the revolution there tore the structure of one of the biggest American agents in middle east at that time which was named the Shah regime (King of Persia). This illustrates the weakness of the realism since the act was out of pessimism from a humanitarian perspective as well as from the United States position in response to the ability of the United Nations securing the situation.

Works Cited

Brown, Edward. Theories of War and Peace for an International Security Reader. New York: MIT Press. 1998. Print.

National Security Archive. The Iraq War. 2010. Web.

Wagner, Harrison. War and the State and the Theory of International Politics. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. 2007. Print.

On March 20, 2003, the United States and Great Britain initiated an invasion of Iraq by means of missiles, aircraft and troops. It was an offence unauthorized by the U.N. Security Council. At the same time, it can be safely argued that Iraq was not at war with the United States or her allies nor was she was contemplating such an occurrence. The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from March 20 to May 1, 2003. It was led by the United States, reinforced by British forces and other comparatively smaller sources of assistance from Australia, Poland and Denmark. However, a number of other countries also jumped into the melee after the war had laid down its burden. It is a matter of thousand pities that multilateral diplomacy did not succeed in resolving the dispute. The war went in violation of the breach of the U.N. charter. The worlds’ most prestigious body was made irrelevant during the process of invasion. It was satirized by calling it to show some backbone to the problem. The objectives which the world powers wanted to gain from the war were considered so important that the calls of the U.N. for multilateral diplomacy and c regard for international law were absolutely ignored. They stood nowhere in the calculation of allies.

Nato became the first causality of the war. France and Germany along with even the civil societies of the invading countries were provoked to protest against the flagrant impingement of all established norms of dealing with such an issue. It became the scar on the forehead of the world community to see the day when legitimacy and involvement of the relevant bodies and institutions were not allowed by force. Modern diplomacy and international law got severe jerk and nearly uprooted. A very dangerous precedent has been set where every country if mightier may take a course of action as she thinks essential. It must be noticed here that United Nations resolution no 1483,(1) which removed sanctions and permitted America to consume the oil revenue and which some think providing legal cover was passed on May 22, 2003. It was after the demise of “major combat operations” on May 1, 2003. Hence, the view of legal cover is flawed.

Bush and Tony Blair were categorical in stressing that there was one sufficient justification of the war and that was Saddams’ having weapons of mass destruction including the most fatal nuclear weapons. Later, on Bush went on to add that America also wanted to see regime change in Iraq and liberate its masses from the shackles of dictatorship who gave them nothing but the miseries of life. The Bush administration advanced the argument that by failing to comply with the UN Security Council, Iraq was in violation of international law and she must be taught lessons. She had failed to disarm and submit to inspections. Iraq was contravening several UN resolutions that included resolutions no. 660, 678 and the US has come to aid the UN for legal compliance by a state that is flouting the Security Councils’ authority with an increased sense of impunity. However, the critics of the argument stress that the legal right to adopt the methodology of the execution of the resolutions lies with the Security Council. It is its exclusive privilege and it is not for the states to tell that they would do it alone and not with the agreement of the prestigious body of the world. One of the main issues of the invasion was whether United Nations would allow it. When the allies led by the United States knew that she would not, they decided to abandon it and went to war on their own in violation of all established norms and practices of the civilized world. Authorization could have required more weapons inspection. They were not being found and already causing embarrassment for the allies, hence it was no smooth sailing and this option was not in favour of allies. Many condemned the invasion and said that it is quite wrong to embark on an invasion without convincing humanity at large which was coming out in the open against the invasion.

The basics of international law have been derived from the United Nations charter, which is mandatory for all the signatories. UN charter is also an integral part of U.S. law as courts in America have ruled on many occasions that it is necessary for the government to comply with it. Article six treats all international treaties as part of the American laws. From Chapter VII of the U.N, it is obvious that the authorization of use of force is the sole privilege of the Security Council and no power can take upon her to use this power. “According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council, and not individual members, to determine how the body’s resolutions are to be implemented (W.H. Taft and T’F. Buchwald, The Future Implication Of War). There is one exception only in case when a state is left with no option after the eventuality of aggression on it and she is forced to resist that aggression. No such situation happened in the case of the Iraq war. Rather the allies by attacking Iraq became the aggressors. The right of self-defence has been delineated in the charter in article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (U.N. Charter, Article 51).

The effects of the invasion on the future credibility and evolution of the U.N have been unfortunate. There has been consistent erosion of the trust in the multilateral system that particularly happened after the end of the cold war when the system of balance of power has been fatigued. However, the United Nations is endeavouring to come over the crisis by declaring it explicitly illegal. The rest of the world community has also been helpful in this regard. Even in America itself, voices have come to the fore against the legitimacy of the invasion. This sounds well for this world body on which the whole system of international law and peace stands. However, there must be a tangible basis of avoidance of such incidents in future. It is heartening to note that there is greater realization in the world than ever before that multilateral diplomacy should be strengthened to prevent the bloodshed. U.N. reform proposals are being debated and such loopholes as are exploited by the aggressors must be plugged.

References

Charter of the United, article 51.united nations home page. Nations. 2008. Web.

W.H. Taft And T’F. Buchwald, The Future Implication Of War The American Journal Of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3 (2003), Pp. 553-563 Doi:10.2307/3109841.

One of the most memorable conflicts of the XX century, the Iraq War is also the issue of numerous controversies, especially when it comes to discussing the reasons for the United States to start an armed conflict against the Iraqi leaders. Despite the fact that the issue has been worn out completely in numerous discussions, and its new reconsideration will add nothing to what has already been learned, the movie directed by Wood may shed more light on the issue.

Because of the focus on the violence and despicability of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the movie fails to mention the effects that the U.S. troops’ invasion has had on Iraq, as well as comment on the problems that the U.S. approach towards addressing the issue of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime had.

Speaking of the weakest points of the movie, one must mention that there is a certain tendency in it to avoid addressing George W. Bush’s policy. What a range of other sources consider the key to understanding the nature of the confrontation has been omitted by Wood. Thus, the movie fails to tie in the Iraq War and the notorious al-Qaeda attacks: “The post-9/11 terrorist attack on American forces in Iraq has also revealed that al-Qa’ida is really a multinational network” (Abootalebi, 2007, p. 416).

Although it is widely considered that George W. Bush’s decision to establish democracy in Iraq was doomed to failure from the start due to culture related issue, it is using invasion as a tool for introducing democracy that worked against the American government, as Yetiv (2007) explains. While there have been a number of Iraq residents, who tried to fight Saddam Hussein’s regime as well (Wood, 2003, 00:02:11), the goals of these people and the American troops were far too different for any of them to succeed.

While both the movie and the articles provide different ways of looking at the notorious conflict between Iraq and the USA, they strangely mention the same factor that could have been the reason for the Iraq War to become not only one of the most devastating conflicts of the XX century, but also one of the most exhausting events period. Considered a strategic mistake by a number of political scientists and economists, the war in Iraq was too complicated a process to view it only as a process of changing the Iraqi political regime.

The movie has a number of valid points, though. The key problem that the Iraqi economy and politics were facing at the time is outlined rather clearly. Much to Wood’s credit, he mentions a range of details that help understand the problem of the Iraq War better. For instance, Iraq’s priorities, e.g., the Iraqi’s weapon regeneration capability in the state of a complete economic chaos” “we’re not talking about food […], we are talking about industrial machinery” (Wood, 2003, 00:50:58).

The information provided in Saddam’s Killing Fields can hardly be called the ultimate truth, since the movie does feature a rather one-sided way of looking at the problem. However, its moments of clarity shine through, and it does help understand the struggle within Iraq, which literally tore its society apart.

As the movie shows, the residents of Iraq were not thrilled with the effects of Saddam Hussein’s political choices, either. Wood does not shy away from showing the devastation that the war has brought onto the Iraqi people, most of whom were farmers (Wood, 2003, 00:40:31). A new way to look at the notorious events in Iraq, Wood’s movie is clearly worth watching.

Reference List

Abootalebi, A. R. (2007). What went wrong in Iraq? In David W. Lesch (ed.), The Middle East and the United States. A historical and political reassessment (pp. 412–433). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wood, M. (2003). Saddam’s killing fields. YouTube. 2012, Oct. 31.

Yetiv, S. A. (2007). The Iraq War of 2003: Why did the United States decide to invade? In David W. Lesch (ed.), The Middle East and the United States. A historical and political reassessment (pp. 394–411). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

These days, media is a major means of informing the audience about everything that happens in the world. Moreover, it has a great influence on the public opinion and, in this regard, it is often used by government to control the country. As to prove this statement, it should be mentioned that there are many media companies are owned by the government.

During the Iraq War, media played an important role in informing people about the conflict between the USA and Iraq. In fact, it shaped the “image of war” and was a moving force in propaganda certain ideas. As a matter of fact, propaganda and bias in the media is logical and inevitable, moreover, the situation is the same all over the world.

The propaganda and bias in the news media is clearly demonstrated in the documentary “Control Room”. It reflects how the media of both countries positioned the war objectives and shaped the views of people about the caused, aims and outcomes of the war actions. Thus, in this paper we are going to analyze the role of the US media and the news channel Al Jazeera during the Iraq war and how those media re-framed the events.

The first issue we are going to discuss is the basis for the bias in the news media. Thus, media is a product created by people of a certain nation for this nation. So, it is no wonder that it is subjected to the cultural influence. We know that every nation and culture has its personal and unique world view shaped by religion, culture and history.

Obviously, media reflects this view and, as a consequence the truth of the world events is lighted subjectively. In other words, it is adjusted to the cultural beliefs and “view” of people of a certain nation. Taking into consideration the information mentioned earlier, we can come to a conclusion that it is obvious that both the US and Arab media use bias and propaganda during the war.

First of all, the bias is noticeable in fact that both media re-framed the aims and objectives of both governments, events that took place during the war and even the “name” of the war. It was made with the purpose of shaping and changing of the public opinion and core beliefs. The main task of the media is to create certain messages and frame them so that the audience could understand them in the appropriate way. As the example of the US media re-framing can be take the process of naming.

So, the Western media was aimed at creating a message that the Iraq war was the war for peace and democracy, they positioned the actions of the US military as the actions of peacemaker fighting against terrorism. In this light, the US media named the war as “The Second Gulf War II,” “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” or the “Anglo-American-Iraq War” to demonstrate that the US were fighting for the “world aims” and were supported by other countries as well.

A positive connotation can be noticed in the names given. In addition, the U. S. media made use of such notions as “freedom” and “liberation” to demonstrate the “kind intentions” of the war. Furthermore, to reinforce the US citizens’ beliefs that Iraq brought the thread of terrorism, they positioned the terrorism attack on September 11, 2001 as “push” to enter the war in Iraq.

The same method of “shaping the public opinion” was used by the Arab media. Thus, people Iraq new this war as “The Third Gulf War”. It was often positioned as the “U.S. War on Iraq”, or even “U.S.A. Invasion of Iraq”, and often as The U.S.A. Aggression or Attack on Iraq”. Some even called it as “The Terrorism of the USA on Iraq”.

Consequently, we can see that the Arab media sent the message with aggressive and negative connotation. In such way, it tried to encourage the public opinion and create a very negative image of the US forces. The criticism of the war in the Arab world was very harsh and often lack balance, especially, on such channel as Al Jazeera that became the most disputable in the Arab world.

Moreover, it was banned by several Arab governments for the criticism of their regime. It should also been mentioned that Arab media was very active during the Iraq war, as the Arab viewers had never seen so many “real-time information”, as during the conflict. The main message of the Iraq media was that the USA as well as Coalition launched a war with the purpose to establish their control over the Iraq oil.

Regardless all claims concerning Saddam’s removal (such as protection from terrorism, saving lives of civilian people, establishment of democracy, etc), the public opinion was that Coalition wanted to have control over their country ignoring their traditions and religion, moreover, media positioned the Coalition as the “Anti-Muslim” organization that was fighting against Muslim people.

But, the Iraq media did not mention the threat of the Weapons of Mass Destruction program which actually was one of the main reasons mentioned by Bush during the address to the Iraq government in the interview.

In the documentary “Control Room”, the journalist Al Jazeera Hassan Ibrahim commented on the work of the US media mentioned that they manages to great job and support the government, he said that he had never seen such propaganda before. At the same time, senior producer of Al Jazeera provided the idea that if a leader did not put media propaganda on the top of the agenda, he was a bad military.

Thus, he emphasized the role of media in the war. However, both press officer of US marines and Al Jazeera staff, claim that the opposite side presented the events in the wrong light. Though, Khader said that the function of the media is purely informative and aims at education the masses about democracy and awaken them to protect their freedom.

So, the involvement of the media in the war cannot be argued. As we can see from the documentary, many journalists were in the heart of the military actions and provided a one side view of the war. The ones, who were freelances, came under attack. Thus, we can say that apart from the informative function, the media played a very important role as the means of the government to control the public opinion.

Thus, the role of the media during the war is great. It is a major means of propaganda and shaping the public opinion. Both the US and Arab media managed to personalize the war and contributed to the conflict. In addition, they created the negative coverage of the opposed sides.

Introduction

Photojournalism plays a big role in providing evidence against many issues that were happening during the Iraq war. Photos had been taken of United States soldiers during the war that created a good image of patriotism. This was later tarnished by other images of torture done towards the Iraq prisoners that indicated very humiliating acts of inhumanity. Photojournalism played a big role in revealing the torture which would have continued to take place in secret. But later, there was visual evidence that was provided by the pictures and that was used to prosecute those involved.

The Iraq War

On 12^th May the year 2009, the front covers of the New York Times indicated a picture showing three soldiers from behind. The soldiers were in a rocky bush in the green valley of eastern Afghanistan and were carrying sandbags on their backs. They were found putting on helmets and flack jackets. In addition to that, they were holding their rifles ready to attack. The soldier on the left side was Zachary Boyd and wore a flip-flop, a red T-shirt, a pink shorts decorated with the logo ‘I ♥ NY’. The photograph was taken by David Guttenfelder when the United States attacks forced Zachary Boyd to come out of the bunk, scantly dressed to be in position to protect his post. (Lange, pp 2).

The photograph brings out a report of a clear and an immediate view of how the battle was heated. The photograph can also create an assurance of how the soldiers were devoted and prepared in the fight. The image of soldiers holding on their rifles was an indication of their readiness for the attack. The image also indicated the aspect of patriotism by focusing on the logo of the shorts worn by Zachary Boyd. From his picture, one can see that this is a soldier in the war, not dressed for it due to circumstances but the logo is an assurance that he is doing this due to patriotism. The bravery of Boyd was later praised by the US secretary of defense, Robert Gates, as he declared that he could only wonder about the impact that was to be caused on the Taliban.

Guttenfelder was later on awarded a second place in the awards for ‘people in the news singles’ when the World Press Photo contest was year. His image also acted in place of front-page photographs that had not been seen in America during the period of the war between Afghanistan and Iraq. This was due to a ban on images of dead US soldiers or coffins bringing them back from the war. Guttenfelder’s photo was seen as positive since images of dead soldiers were highly criticized. The Associated Press released the photos of the wounded soldiers in September 2009. Gates seriously condemned (Lange, pp 7).

After much criticism of photography of the US soldiers during the war, another images emerged which fell outside the spectrum of the war. These were of Saddam’s hideouts that were taken by soldiers who stormed into it. Other photographs that brought controversies in America were those of coffins carrying soldiers that were being returned to America by a private contractor. These photos were taken by military personnel of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. These were not intended to be viewed by the public until when they leaked to the media.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

Other photos were those taken by American soldiers of the Abu Ghraib prisoners. Those photos were then given out as evidence of torture that was being done by the American soldiers on the detainees of Abu Ghraib. The torture in Abu Ghraib was exposed when the US media started showing interest after the first report of abuse by the US military. The central command in the United States however explained to the media that investigations over the matters had begun. This was then followed by other reports of abuse. This continued until April 2004 when broadcast by 60 minutes II television news–magazine released photographs evidencing torture of prisoners by US soldiers. Some of the images included a US army officer in front of naked prisoners forcing them to masturbate with their heads covered with polythene sacks. Another photograph was of a US army sergeant sitting on a Iraqi prisoner between two stretchers, and the other one was of two US soldiers standing behind a pyramid of naked US soldiers.

After the release of these photos, Iraqis were not very much surprised because they have been suspecting that anything might happen. People had been talking about it and the photos were just to add on evidence over their suspicion. US president later apologized to Iraqi saying that those involved would be punished though this was taken not to be enough apology for torture. This resulted in the imprisonment of those who were directly involved in the issues. Other responses over the matter include the Geneva Convention which had been approved by US as the law of land. The convention categorically banned torture, and acts of violence and cruelty, humiliations and degrading actions against prisoners any time and anywhere (Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster, 267).

The evidence of torture given by these images caused the blood of many people in Iraqi and other parts of the world to boil. This resulted in attacks on the Americans and British. Iraqis got angry after seeing the humiliating images and they started panning for a revenge that could help them to restore their humiliated dignity. The release of photos of the Israel Defense Forces featuring Palestinian prisoners some of whom were dead has brought back the discussion on the abuse and humiliating treatment among the media. New media groups are entering into the investigations and the pictures are still being posted on internet sites. Several media groups in many countries of the world are still holding the many unreleased pictures of the detainees’ torture by the US army. However, the former US president, George Bush was against the release of such photos during his leadership arguing that the release of such photos would cause an adversary towards them (Greenberg, 132).

Conclusion

The actions of US army officers have been evidenced by the use of photos. Photos have acted as proof for the humiliating acts that were done towards the Iraqis and the Palestinians by the US soldiers. However, in the case of war against Iraqi, the photos by Guttenfelder acted as a source of evidence for the good work of the soldiers. Photos can therefore give both positive and negative evidence.

Works Cited

Greenberg Karen. The torture debate in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Lange Christy, Shooting Gallery. Web.

Miller, Frederic: Vandome, Agnes: and McBrewster John. Abu Ghraib Torture and Prisoner Abuse: Baghdad Central Prison, 372nd Military Police Company (United States), OGA,Manadel Al- Jamadi, Thomas Pappas. Georgia: Alphascript Publishing, 2009.