allan stuart y andén papadopoulos, come on, let us shoot, wikileaks and the cultures of...

7/27/2019 Allan Stuart y Andn Papadopoulos, Come on, let us shoot, Wikileaks and the cultures of militarization

1/10

TOPIA23-24

244

Stuart Allan and Kari Andn-Papadopoulos

Come on, let us shoot!: WikiLeaks and theCultures of Militarization

ABSTRACT

Tis paper explores the controversy generated by the nonprot WikiLeakswebsites posting o a video documenting the shooting o a group o civilians by U.S.orces situated in a helicopter gunship hovering over a Baghdad neighbourhood.Sparking press attention around the world, the brutal rawness o the black and

white ootagecompounded by the harrowing exchanges between the air crewrecorded on the audio trackproved acutely unsettling to viewers otherwisehabituated to routine (eectively sanitized) renderings o the horrors o a warzone.

Tis paper considers the video as an instance where the cultural normalization omilitarization was disrupted in ideological terms, thereby threatening to unravelocially-sanctioned relations o communicative power.

RSUM

Allez, laissez-nous tirer ! WikiLeaks et les cultures de la militarisation

Cet article examine la controverse gnre par le site Internet but non lucratiWikiLeaks, qui a mis en ligne une vido montrant la usillade dun groupe de civils

par les orces armes amricaines du haut dun hlicoptre de combat survolant unquartier de Bagdad. Ayant attir lattention de la presse dans le monde entier, lacrudit brutale du lm en noir et blanc accentue par les changes atroces entreles quipages ariens enregistrs par la bande-son se sont avrs extrmementperturbants pour les spectateurs par ailleurs habitus aux comptes rendus routiniers(ecacement aseptiss) des horreurs dune zone de conits. Cet article considrecette vido comme un cas o la normalisation culturelle de la militarisation at interrompue en termes idologiques, menaant ainsi de dnouer les relationsociellement approuves du pouvoir des communications.


2/10

TOPIA23-24

245

o contend that journalism is implicated in cultures o militarization is to invitean active reconsideration o certain culturalindeed, prooundly mythologized

norms underpinning ostensibly mundane, everyday inections o militarism inmedia discourses. We can kill thousands because we have rst learned to callthem enemy, British historian E. P. Tompson (1980) pointed out whencampaigning or nuclear disarmament years ago. Wars commence in the culturerst o all, he added, and we kill each other in euphemisms and abstractions longbeore the rst missiles have been launched (51). In a similar vein, Lutzs (2002)analysis o militarization leads her to argue that it is simultaneously a discursiveprocess, involving a shit in general societal belies and values in ways necessaryto legitimate the use o orce, the organization o large standing armies and their

leaders and the higher taxes or tribute used to pay or them. In her view, it is

intimately connected not only to the obvious increase in the size o armiesand resurgence o militant nationalisms and militant undamentalisms butalso to the less visible deormation o human potentials into the hierarchieso race, class, gender, and sexuality, and to the shaping o national historiesin ways that gloriy and legitimate military action. (2002: 723)

For James Der Derian, Western news reportings distanced, one-sided representa-tions are indicative o a broader reconceptualization o war as being remote,

virtuous and bloodless (or at least with minimal casualties on our side). Morethan a rational calculation o interests takes us to war, he contends. People go to

war because o how they see, perceive, picture, imagine, and speak oothers: that is,how they construct the dierence o others as well as the sameness o themselvesthrough representations (Der Derian 2009: 238; c Andn-Papadopoulos 2009;Matheson and Allan 2009; Stahl 2010).

Te cultural politics o representation invites urther consideration o the sociallycontingent normalization o militarization. O particular interest or our purposeshere is an instance where these uneven, contradictory (yet largely tacit) imperativeso normalization are thrown into sharp relie, namely by the nonprot WikiLeaks

websites posting o a video documenting the shooting o a group o civilians by U.S.orces situated in a helicopter gunship hovering over a Baghdad neighbourhood.

Te site introduces the cockpit ootage, titled Collateral Murder, with a shortwritten statement, the opening paragraph o which asserts:

WikiLeaks has released a classied US military video depicting theindiscriminate slaying o over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb o NewBaghdadincluding two Reuters news sta [on July 12, 2007]. Reutershas been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom o Inormation

Act, without success since the time o the attack. Te video, shot roman Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying o a


3/10

TOPIA23-24

246

wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. wo young children involvedin the rescue were also seriously wounded. (http://WikiLeaks.org/wiki/Drat:CM)

Te statement continues, pointing out that the military had reused to reveal toReuters how its sta members, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driverSaeed Chmagh, were killed (two o the twelve people who died in the attack).Evidently, WikiLeaks received the video in question, together with supportingdocuments, rom a number o military whistleblowers. Due care was taken to

veriy the authenticity o the inormation, the statement adds, which includedthe analysis o a range o source materials and the interviewing o witnessesand journalists directly involved in the incident. wo versions o the video,composed primarily o the gun-camera tape, were posted on the sitethe ull-

version running at thirty-eight minutes, as well as a seventeen-minute editedversionwith both containing subtitles o speech recorded rom the helicoptersradio transmissions.

In examining the video and the ensuing controversy its release generated, thispaper devotes particular attention to the ways in which ocially sanctionedand, all too typically, journalistically endorsedrelations o communicativepower threatened to unravel. Tere can be little doubt, in our reading at least,that the brutal rawness o the videos black and white ootagecompounded by

the harrowing exchanges between the air crew recorded on the audio trackwill be acutely unsettling to viewers otherwise habituated to routine (eectivelysanitized) renderings o the horrors o a warzone. Indeed, we argue that itsideological signicance is underscored by its unnerving contravention o theemotional detachment ordinarily pregured in the militarys preerred narratives,and as such signals a telling moment when the cultural norms o militarization

were dramatically transgressed.

A Real-World War ScenarioCollateral Murder switly became an Internet sensation when it was posted onthe WikiLeaks website on April 5, 2010, attracting news media attention aroundthe globe while, at the same time, igniting heated debate in the blogosphere (theseventeen-minute version having gone viral via Youube). Te ootage o U.S.soldiers killing what appears to be a group o innocent citizensand doing so in amanner that seemed as jocular as it was arbitraryinvited impassioned responsesrom across the political spectrum. Among the array o voices were those expressing

their outrage at what they perceived to be a war crime, some contending that theGeneva Conventions or humanitarian treatment o casualties had been violated.Others debated the nature o murder in WikiLeakss choice o title, callinginto question the legal complexities associated with the U.S. militarys rules o


4/10

TOPIA23-24

247

engagement. Still others blamed the og o war, insisting that the incident waslittle more than a regrettable example o what can happen in the heat o battle.

While space does not permit a detailed analysis o the video here, several

moments proved particularly salient in the ensuing news coverage. Ater beingtold by command that they are ree to engage, one o the iers is heard saying:Light them all up. Come on, re! Te gunships open re on the group, killingseveral people and wounding others. Ater releasing one o the multiple roundso 30 mm canon re shot during the incident, one crewman shouts: Ha-ha. Ihit em. A ew seconds later, another voice says: Oh yeah, look at those deadbastards. Te response rom the other pilot is Nice. One survivor, identied ina subtitle as Reuters driver Chmagh, can be seen crawling towards a courtyardto saety. A voice is heard urging the wounded man to pick up a gunCome

on buddy, all you gotta do is pick up a weaponon the pretext that the rules oengagement permit him to be killed as a consequence (no weapons were actually

visible, but a camera and tripod may have been conused as such). Minutes later,when a van pulls up in what appears to be an attempt to transport those still aliveto a hospital or medical attention, the air crew request permission rom groundcontrol to stop the rescue eort. As unarmed Iraqis begin to help a wounded

victim into the van, the voices o the air crew grow impatientCome on, let usshootbeore permission is granted to attack. Te crews open re, riddling the

van with armour-piercing shells. As the helicopter continues to circle overhead,U.S. ground orces arrive. Tey soon discover that among the injured in the vanare two children. Well its their ault or bringing their kids into a battle, one othe pilots says. Soon ater, an armoured military vehicle appears to run over oneo the corpses (believed to be Chmagh). I think they just drove over a body, oneo the pilots observes with laughter in his voice.

In placing the video into the public domain, WikiLeaks succeeded where Reutershad ailed. Te latter had actively petitioned the U.S. military to release the video

since July 25, 2007, when its editors where shown a version during an o-the-recordbrieng in Baghdad. Having been denied its own copy, Reuters had proceeded tomake a request under the Freedom o Inormation Act to pry it loose. No progresshad been made in securing a copy by the time o the WikiLeaks interventionover two and a hal years later. In posting the video (once its encryption hadbeen broken) alongside other military documents, the site provided an evidentialbasis to challenge the militarys version o eventsnamely its insistence that thehelicopter had been engaged in an active re-ght, and that those killed had beeninsurgents. For WikiLeaks director Julian Assange, the video provided proo that

both claims were untrue:

Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches i someone wascarrying an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] and that person was an enemyo the United States? [] Te behaviour o the pilots is like a computer


5/10

TOPIA23-24

248

game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, theirresponse is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon....It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number o kills.(Qtd in McGreal 2010).

Pressed or comment about Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, Reuterseditor-in-chie David Schlesinger stated that their deaths were tragic andemblematic o the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. Te

video, he added, is graphic evidence o the dangers involved in war journalismand the tragedies that can result (qtd. in Reuters 2010). Several members oChmaghs amily weptas they watched the

video, the New York

imes reported. I sawthe truth, his 19-year-old son Samir is quotedstating. Tey sawclearly that they were

journalists and that theywere holding cameras.It was painul when wesaw this movie (qtd. in

Arango and Bumiller2010).

Judgements regardingprecisely what the videorevealed varied markedlyrom one viewer to thenext, o course, withmuch depending uponprior opinions aboutthe relative legitimacyo the U.S.-led invasion,as well as assumptionsabout what constitutesthe appropriate use olethal orce (includingdistinctions between

combatants and non-combatants). For somethe video relayed anunltered reality that

was highly disturbing in

Fig. 1 (left) and Fig. 2 (below)Stills captured from video posted on WikiLeaks. Unknown contr.http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Collateral_Murder,_5_Apr_2010


6/10

TOPIA23-24

249

its own right, but also because it highlighted the extent to which news coverageo the conict lters away such im-agery on the basis o good taste censorship.

A reading o the reportage covering the videos release provides urther insightsinto the attendant complexities o journalistic mediation in this regard. Te

actions o the trigger-happy pilots were widely deplored, with their callousand bloodthirsty comments oten singled out or particular criticism. Te radiotransmissions show not only the utter callousness o the soldiers, laughing andswearing as they kill, Amy Goodman (2010) pointed out, but also the strictprocedure they ollow, ensuring that all o their attacks are clearly authorized bytheir chain o command. Words such as chilling, wrenching and grotesquesurace repeatedly in reports, with some dwelling on the extent to which the

video resembles rst-person shoot-em-up computer games (echoing Assanges

observation above). Douglas Haddow (2010), on Te Guardians comment isree site, writes:

One o the most alarming aspects o Collateral Murder is that itdemonstrates how similar the logic o the Apache pilots is to that o theaverage gamer. Te video allows us to examine the entire process o how arationale or attack is reached. We see exactly what the Apache pilots saw,the black-and-white gun-cam ootage underscored by their darkly cynicalcolour-commentary o the ensuing carnage. As the helicopter approachesthe men, we hear a pilot say: See all those people standing down there?

Te camera zooms in on the group and we see Saeed with a camera bagslung on his right shoulder. Tats a weapon, a pilot says. Fucking prick,comes the reply.

And with that, a ew unarmed, relaxed civilians hanging around a courtyardare transormed into a contingent o dangerous insurgents that must bedestroyed. (Haddow 2010)

Other commentators stressed how the apparent similarity between the video anda war game revealed what they considered to be the moral corruption o soldiersby this hyper-tech rendering o warare in which civilian deaths become collateraldamage. Te pilots behaviour was debased, they suggested, because the enemyhad been eectively dehumanized.

Looking at the war through a soda straw

In the immediate atermath o Collateral Murder, pressure was brought tobear on the U.S. military to reopen its investigation o the incident (its initial

inquiry concluded that the gun crews had exercised sound judgment). Tisis evidence o calculated, cold-blooded and horriying violence, argued JimBoumelha, President o the International Federation o Journalists. Te UnitedStates cannot ignore this atrocity and the killings o unarmed civilians. We insiston a completely new review o these and all the killings o journalists and media


7/10

TOPIA23-24

250

sta in the Iraq conict (qtd. in IFJ 2010). A similar call was issued rom deenceexperts, such as Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaer, who told Te imes oLondon that the Pentagon would have to publicly account or the killings or al-Qaeda will continue to use this sort o thing as a recruiting tool (qtd. in Whittell

and Fordham 2010).

Speculation was rie across the mediascape regarding the lasting impact o thevideo on global perceptions o the U.S. militarys conduct. James Fallows, nationalcorrespondent or Te Atlantic, made the point directly:

I cant pretend to know the ull truth or circumstances o this. But at acevalue it is the most damaging documentation o abuse since the AbuGhraib prison-torture photos. As you watch, imagine the reaction in the

US i the people on the ground had been Americans and the people on themachine guns had been Iraqi, Russian, Chinese, or any other nationality.As with Abu Ghraib, and again assuming this is what it seems to be, thetemptation will be to blame the operations-level people who were, in thiscase, chuckling as they mowed people down. Tats not where the realresponsibility lies. (Fallows 2010)

Tis question o responsibility, not surprisingly, ocused the eorts o militaryand Pentagon ocials mobilizing to re-appropriate the video ootage into theirpreerred rames o understanding. Appearing on ABCs Tis Week, DeenseSecretary Robert Gates admitted that the video made or dicult viewing. Asked

whether he thought the events in question would damage the image o the U.S.in the world, he replied:

I dont think so [] Teyre in a combat situation. Te video doesnt showthe broader picture o the ring that was going on at American troops. Itsobviously a hard thing to see. Its painul to see, especially when you learnater the act what was going on. But you talked about the og o war. Tesepeople were operating in split-second situations. [] And, you know, weve

investigated it very thoroughly. And it s unortunate. Its clearly not helpul.But by the same token, I think it should not have any lasting consequences.(qtd. in Stein 2010)

Gates went urther in a later interview, insisting that videos such as this oneprovided an incomplete picture o what was happening on the battleeld. Tat isthe problem with these videos, he argued. You are looking at the war through asoda straw and you have no context or perspective (qtd. in Barnes 2010).

Just a ew days later, however, two soldiers rom the Army unit responsible orthe attack oered an alternative perspective o their own, stating that: Te actsdepicted in this video are everyday occurrences o this war. Josh Steiber andEthan McCords words appeared in An Open Letter o Reconciliation andResponsibility to the Iraqi People (Steiber and McCord 2010), in which they


8/10

TOPIA23-24

251

apologize to all o those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007Baghdad shootings depicted in the video, recognizing that our words can neverrestore your losses. Te letter states that the WikiLeaks ootage only begins todepict the suering we have created, such is the nature o how US-led wars are

carried out in this region. Tey continue:

We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries o your loved onesas we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carriedout in the name o god and country. Te soldier in the video said that

your husband shouldnt have brought your children to battle, but weare acknowledging our responsibility or bringing the battle to yourneighborhood, and to your amily. We did unto you what we would not

want done to us.

More and more Americans are taking responsibility or what was done inour name. Tough we have acted with cold hearts ar too many times, wehave not orgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still holdhope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment o yourhumanity, that we were taught to deny. (Steiber and McCord 2010)

Tey then proceed to directly address Gatess claim that the reputation o theU.S. would not be damaged by the incident, stating we stand and say that ourreputations importance pales in comparison to our common humanity. Precisely

what this reassertion o humanity meant or McCord was based on the tragicexperiences that day. He is shown in the video, striving to help the injuredchildrentwelve-year-old Sahad Salah and his six-year-old sister Duaacaughtup in the strang (their ather, the driver o the van taking the children homerom school when they stopped to help, was dead). When I saw those kids,McCord later recalled, all I could picture was my kids back home (qtd. in PressRelease 2010).

In retrospect, it is apparent that the controversy generated by WikiLeakss decision

to make the video public was short-lived. It virtually disappeared rom themainstream media ollowing the 24-hour news cycle, with most o the remainingreporting and commentary shiting onto online news sites and blogsacilitated,o course, by the availability o links to the video in question. Te waning o thecontroversy was attributable by some to the act that it was released while theU.S. Congress was in recess, thereby making its overt political implications moredicult or journalists to explore. Others contended that the graphic nature othe video made it too hot to handle or television news networks, presumably

concerned about the risk o upsetting their audiences or, perhaps more to thepoint, advertisers. Still others maintained that it was all too indicative o theextent to which news rom Iraq has dropped o the news agenda, with the videosimply deemed to be insuciently newsworthy to warrant sustained attention.


9/10

TOPIA23-24

252

While recognizing all o these possible actors, a urther reading might dwellon the way in which the video challenges the everyday cultures o militarismotherwise so prevalent in Western war reporting rom Iraq. Te experience o

viewing it is acutely jarring, we would suggest, in part because it is made available

in the absence o the customary orms o journalistic mediation that usuallyaccompanies such imagery. Te perormative capacity o war reporting to sustaindetachment, to eectively normalize the cultural imperatives o militarism in suchamiliar repetition that killing becomes almost banal, is taken or granted. In other

words, it is customary or news reports to oer a sense o reassurance (a blurringo ontological security with national security) in their rearmation o ocialtruth-claims regarding the waging o war by us against them. What makes this

video so powerul, then, is its disruption o the ideological purchase o militarism

by recasting these codied strictures, namely by representing in horric detailhow we are being transormed into a reprehensible Other.

References

Andn-Papadopoulos, K. 2009. Body Horror on the Internet: US Soldiers Recording theWar in Iraq and Aghanistan.Media, Culture and Society31(6): 921-38.

Arango, . and E. Bumiller. 2010. For 2 Grieving Families, Video Reveals Grim ruth.Te New York imes, 6 April.

Barnes, J. E. 2010. Gates Criticizes Leaks Group or War Video. Te Los Angeles imes,

13 April.Der Derian, J. 2009 Virtuous War, Second Edition. New York and London: Routledge.

Fallows, J. 2010. In case you missed them.... http://TeAtlantic.com, 6 April.

Goodman, A. 2010. Collateral murder in Iraq. http://www.ruthDig.com, 6 April.

Haddow, D. 2010. Grim truths o WikiLeaks Iraq video. http://Guardian.co.uk, 7 April.

International Federation o Journalists. 2010. IFJ Demands Probe into Iraq MediaDeaths Ater US Army Film Exposes Killing o Unarmed Civilians and Journalists.http://www.if.org, 6 April.

Lutz, C. 2002. Making War at Home in the United States: Militarization and the Cur-rent Crisis. American Anthropologist 104(3): 723-35.

Matheson, D. and S. Allan. 2009. Digital War Reporting. Cambridge: Polity.

McGreal, C. 2010. WikiLeaks Reveals Video Showing US Air Crew Shooting DownIraqi Civilians. Te Guardian, 5 April.

Press Release. 2010. Veterans o WikiLeaks Incident Announce Letter o reconcilia-tion to Iraqis Injured in Attack. [email protected], 15 April.

Reuters. 2010. Leaked Video Shows Reuters Journalists Killed by US Gunships. http://www.independent.co.uk, 6 April.

Stahl, R. 2010.Militainment, Inc. New York: Routledge.

Steiber, J. and E. McCord. 2010. An Open Letter o Reconciliation and Responsibilityto the Iraqi People. http://www.lettertoiraq.com.


10/10

TOPIA23-24

253

Stein, S. 2010. Gates: WikiLeaks video painul to see but wont have lasting impact.HungtonPost.com, April 11.

Tompson, E. P. 1980. Protest and survive. In Protest and Survive, edited by E. P. Tomp-son and D. Smith. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Whittell, G. and A. Fordham. 2010. Leaked Video Footage Shows Iraq JournalistsKilled by US Gunships. Te imes, 7 April.

allan stuart y andén papadopoulos, come on, let us shoot, wikileaks and the cultures of...

Documents