Chapter 1 and 2

Chapter One:

Q. Critical role of visuality in shaping public perception, the constitution of

power, and the execution of military operations

Ans-Visuaity is central to the modern warfare. Visuality is not peripheral to

understanding the world but is foundational to how reality is constructed.
Visuality—images, videos, and representations—shapes public consciousness,
political narratives, and strategic actions.

If one were to remove the propaganda videos from the Islamic State, the
satellite images of the alleged "weapons of mass destruction," the images of the
toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue, and the "ghost of Abu Ghraib" (Mitchell,
2011) from the Iraq war, the perception of this event would be different.

Also, the rescue video of Private Jessica Lynch, the images of the
toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue, and the "Top Gun" landing— were not
just incidental documentation of events during the Iraq War but were
deliberately orchestrated and disseminated by the U.S. administration to craft a
narrative of power, legitimacy, and moral authority.

1. The Rescue of Private Jessica Lynch (2003) Event:

The U.S. military staged and filmed the dramatic rescue of Jessica
Lynch, a soldier captured during an ambush. The operation was
heavily publicized as a daring act of heroism.

The video footage portrayed the U.S. military as heroic, efficient, and
morally righteous, rescuing an innocent and vulnerable soldier from
enemy hands. However, subsequent reports revealed that Lynch faced
 no immediate danger during the rescue, and much of the operation's
drama was exaggerated or fabricated.

Purpose:

 The rescue functioned as a propaganda to humanize the war,

deflecting attention from broader controversies like civilian casualties
or the invasion's legality.

 It reinforced the U.S. as a benevolent global power intervening to

"save" and protect individuals, justifying imperialist interventions as
morally imperative.

2. The Toppling of Saddam Hussein’s Statue (2003):

This moment was broadcast live worldwide, showing Iraqi civilians

and U.S. troops pulling down Saddam’s statue in Firdos Square after
the invasion of Baghdad.

The image symbolized the fall of a dictator and the liberation of Iraq.
However, reports later showed that the event was carefully staged by
U.S. forces, with a small group of handpicked Iraqis participating
while the square was cordoned off.

Purpose:

 It served as a visual metaphor for regime change, portraying the U.S. as

liberators overthrowing tyranny.

 This carefully constructed moment obscured the invasion's imperialist

motives, such as controlling oil resources and establishing political dominance
in the Middle East.
 It cemented the U.S.'s narrative of delivering freedom, masking the chaotic
aftermath and prolonged occupation

3. "Top Gun" Imagery (2003) Event:

President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a

fighter jet, dressed in military gear, and declared the end of major
combat operations under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished."

This image evoked the persona of a wartime leader and drew parallels
to Hollywood heroism, particularly the film Top Gun. It framed the
president as a decisive, victorious commander.

Purpose:

 To show that the U.S. as a superpower with unmatched military

capabilities.

 The "mission accomplished" declaration was meant to assert

dominance and control over Iraq, even as the insurgency was just
beginning.

 The imagery also targeted domestic audiences, bolstering Bush’s

political capital and justifying continued support for U.S. military
interventions globally

Points to remember:

The U.S.'s use of imagery demonstrates how images transcend their role as
documentation and become active participants in the conflict itself.
War is not only fought on battlefields but also in the public imagination, where
images play a central role in shaping perceptions. Images serve as tools to craft
narratives, establish legitimacy, and persuade audiences.

In 2003, Colin Powell presented satellite images to the UN as evidence of Iraq's

possession of WMDs. Powell's repeated use of the phrase "weapons of mass
destruction" (17 times) created a narrative of urgency, danger, and legitimacy to
the invasion of Iraq.

These images were later discredited as misrepresentations, highlighting the

potential for visual manipulation.

The global dissemination of these visuals demonstrated how imagery could be

used as a weapon to influence international diplomacy and public opinion.

The Iraq War, therefore, exemplifies how the "war of images" operates as a
battleground for constructing and contesting the narratives of conflict.

"The war image performs the American victory as an image, and it is done"

McLuhan’s Concept: Integrating One Medium Within Another

1. McLuhan observed that when one medium is placed within another, the
"context" of the given medium is reshaped by the larger structure into
which it is embedded.
2. The embedded medium does not operate independently; its meaning and
function are influenced by the host medium.
3. By embedding journalists with military units, the U.S. military controlled
the physical and informational context in which reporting occurred.
 4. The journalists’ proximity to soldiers shaped their narratives, often
making them more sympathetic to the military perspective.
5. Reports often emphasized the heroism of U.S. troops and downplayed
civilian casualties or strategic failures, aligning with the military's
objectives.

Image Warfare

The emergence of "image warfare" in the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent
War on Terror illustrates the shifting dynamics of how war is represented,
understood, and contested in an era of evolving media systems. As the U.S.
government and military faced challenges in controlling war narratives, the rise
of new media structures complicated the representation and perception of its
imperial ambitions in the Middle East.

Challenges in Managing the Representation of war:

 Evolving Media Systems:

1. The transition from traditional mass media (TV, newspapers) to

decentralized and participatory media (social media, blogs) diluted the
government’s ability to control war narratives.
2. Instant dissemination of images and videos, often from unofficial sources,
created multiple and competing narratives.
3. In the Iraq War, visuals served both to reinforce and critique the U.S.’s
imperial project, revealing the double-edged nature of visual media.
While the government sought to use images to justify its actions and
assert dominance, the decentralized evolution of media systems often
exposed the contradictions, costs, and ethical dilemmas of its military
interventions. This underscores the complexity of controlling war
 narratives in an age where visual media plays a central, yet unpredictable,
role in times of conflict.

Agamben’s concepts of exception and biopolitics, coupled with Mbembe’s

necropolitics, reveal how visuality operates as a key instrument of power in the
Iraq War. The U.S. used imagery to construct a state of exception, justify
intervention, and manage perceptions of life and death. However, these visuals
also raised questions about the ethics of war, the commodification of suffering,
and the complicity of media in sustaining imperial narratives. This framework
underscores the critical role of visual media in shaping the politics and memory
of conflict.

 Optics of Justification (Exception):

1. Visual media, such as satellite imagery of WMDs or footage of Saddam

Hussein’s statue toppling, reinforced the state of exception by framing
Iraq as a unique threat requiring intervention.
2. These images helped suspend international norms and justified the
invasion as a necessary act of sovereignty.

 Biopolitical Management Through Imagery:

1. The U.S. leveraged visuals to construct hierarchies of life.  Images of

U.S. soldiers rescuing children or distributing aid emphasized the
biopolitical narrative of saving lives.
2. Simultaneously, the invisibility of Iraqi civilian casualties reflected the
biopolitical devaluation of non-American lives.

 Necropolitical Spectacle:
 1. Videos of drone strikes and targeted assassinations turned killing into a
public spectacle, emphasizing precision and morality.
2. The erasure of the aftermath of such strikes (e.g., civilian deaths,
destruction) highlighted the necropolitical logic of valuing certain lives
over others.

Chapter Two

1. The integration of advanced technologies into military operations has

created what is often referred to as the martial gaze—a framework in
which the act of perceiving through technology becomes intertwined with
the act of targeting and violence. This convergence of perception and
destruction is facilitated by the visibility provided by modern political
technologies such as satellite imaging, drones, AI surveillance, and other
tools of observation and analysis.

The Martial Gaze and the Role of Visibility

Definition:

1. The martial gaze refers to the military's ability to see, track, and define
targets through advanced technologies. This process is inherently
political, as the act of seeing often translates into an act of controlling or
eliminating

Visibility as a Weapon:

1. In the contemporary global battle space, visibility is not neutral; it serves

as a precondition for violence. To be seen by the martial gaze is to be
rendered vulnerable to targeting and destruction.
 2. The martial gaze often reduces complex social realities into
oversimplified data points, increasing the likelihood of violence against
non-combatants.
3. The martial gaze turns the entire planet into a battle space, where
violence can be enacted at any time against any perceived threat.
4. The ability to see and surveil is no longer separate from the ability to
target and destroy. This convergence has transformed the nature of
warfare, globalizing the battle space and reducing individuals to mere
objects of data.
5. While these technologies enhance operational efficiency, they also raise
profound ethical, political, and humanitarian questions about the nature of
modern conflict and the vulnerability of those under constant observation.
6. The relationship between visibility and violence thus underscores the
complexities of perception in an era defined by surveillance-driven
warfare.

Ocular Politics of killing:

1. The incorporation of political technologies of vision in the post-9/11

wars, particularly those waged by the United States, revealed an ocular
politics of killing—a framework where visibility, surveillance, and
representation became central to the justification, execution, and
legitimization of violence.
2. This ocular politics is rooted in the power of seeing and being seen,
where technologies of vision like drones, satellite imagery, and biometric
surveillance played critical roles in transforming how war was waged and
perceived.
3. Ocular politics refers to how visibility and visual technologies are
deployed to exercise power, control, and violence. In the context of war,
 it signifies the strategic use of vision to identify, surveil, and target
individuals or groups.
4. Vision technologies not only shaped military operations but also
influenced public perception, creating a narrative of precision and
righteousness.

Political Technologies of Vision

Drone Surveillance and Targeting

1. Drones equipped with high-resolution cameras and sensors became

emblematic of post-9/11 warfare.
2. They allowed for persistent surveillance of enemy territories, identifying
potential targets from a distance, often without human oversight on the
ground.
3. The ability to see and strike remotely shifted the nature of killing,
creating a detachment between the act of observation and its violent
consequences.

 Satellite Imagery:

1. Satellite images were instrumental in shaping political narratives, such as

the alleged presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.
2. These images functioned as visual "evidence" to justify military
interventions, demonstrating how technologies of vision could construct
the legitimacy of violence.

Biometric Surveillance:

1. Facial recognition, retinal scans, and other biometric technologies turned

individual bodies into data points for classification and targeting.
 2. These technologies amplified the politics of killing by reducing
individuals to visual identifiers, often erasing their humanity in the
process.
3. To be seen by the U.S. military's ocular gaze was to be rendered
vulnerable, with visibility often leading directly to elimination.

Global Expansion of the Battlefield:

1. Political technologies of vision enabled the U.S. to extend its ocular

politics globally, transforming distant regions into battle spaces.
2. Civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and beyond found themselves
under constant observation, vulnerable to being deemed threats based on
visual data.

Racial politics

The use of political technologies of vision in the post-9/11 wars reveals how
race is deeply embedded in the mechanisms of modern warfare. From biometric
surveillance to drone strikes, the racial politics of the "War on Terror"
influenced how targets were perceived, categorized, and managed. These
technologies were not neutral; they functioned within a racialized understanding
of threat, rendering certain populations more visible and vulnerable to violence
while protecting others. Ultimately, the ocular politics of killing in this context
illuminates the deep entanglement of race, surveillance, and warfare, where
visibility and racial categorization became key factors in determining who lives
and who dies.

Virilio's View on Visual Perception and Warfare:

1. Paul Virilio famously argued that the act of visually perceiving a target in
modern warfare immediately triggers the preparation for its complete
 destruction. This reflects the inherent nature of contemporary military
operations, where observation and targeting are not separate steps but part
of an integrated, instantaneous process.

Immediate Response to Perception:

1. In the modern context, once a target is seen, the military is prepared to

neutralize it. The speed at which military forces can perceive and respond
to a target—through drones, satellites, and precision-guided munitions—
highlights how warfare is now fundamentally shaped by technology and
its ability to translate vision into action almost immediately
2. The moment a target is identified (via surveillance technologies like
drones or satellites), the response is reflexive and happens with minimal
human intervention. The technological systems are designed for quick
reaction, minimizing the need for manual oversight or decisionmaking
processes. This phenomenon is emblematic of Virilio's idea of
"dromology", the study of speed and the implications of technological
acceleration in warfare.

Visual Technologies and World Domination:

1. Heidegger’s critique suggests that by reducing the world to a "picture," it

becomes a manageable object for domination. Modern warfare reflects
this, as visual technologies (such as global positioning systems, satellite
imagery, and drone surveillance) allow states to "picture" the world and,
by extension, control it. The U.S. Air Force already acknowledged their
ability to conduct global strikes based on precise visual data, thus
enabling the domination of any location on Earth.

The Global Battlefield as a “Picture”:

 1. Modern warfare, through the lens of Virilio’s and Heidegger’s
perspectives, can be seen as the enactment of conquering the world as a
picture. The entire globe becomes a field of vision, accessible to those
who possess the technological means to see and act on the visual data.
This creates a new form of control where the battlefield is not a physical
location but a visualized map of targets, susceptible to destruction at any
moment.

The Power of the Gaze:

1. Virilio suggests that in the future, deterrence will no longer rely on the
sheer presence of weapons but on the power of the gaze— the ability to
see, observe, and target at long distances. In this sense, the gaze becomes
the ultimate form of military power.
2. The capacity to observe an adversary and aim at a target, even without
direct engagement, can act as a powerful deterrent. If an enemy knows
they are being watched, it can influence their behavior or force them to
make decisions to avoid being targeted.
3. Virilio argues that in the future, the concept of deterrence will evolve.
Instead of relying on the physical presence of weapons (e.g., nuclear
bombs or missiles), deterrence will come from the power of perception—
the gaze.
4. Virilio suggests that the act of aiming itself, with the capability of
immediate action, is more significant than the weapon used. The visual
threat—the knowledge that one is always in the crosshairs—can be more
destabilizing than the actual physical destruction of a target.

Linear perspective:
 1. The emergence of linear perspective during the Italian Renaissance
played a crucial role in shaping the concept of the martial gaze,
particularly in how vision, space, and control are linked to military
power. The idea of the martial gaze refers to the act of seeing, perceiving,
and targeting within a military context, where the act of visualizing a
target is not just about observation but also about dominance, control, and
action. The Italian Renaissance's development of linear perspective can
be seen as a precursor to the eye in the sky.

The "Video Game" Effect:

1. The experience of operating drones has been compared to playing a video

game. Drone operators are tasked with viewing the world through a
screen, where they use controls to target and strike. This environment can
dehumanize both the target and the act of killing, as the operators are
distanced from the realities of the conflict and the consequences of their
actions. The reduction of war to a video game-like experience has led to
concerns about the ethical and psychological consequences of such a
mode of warfare.

Public Perception of Warfare:

1. Drone vision has also had a profound impact on how the public perceives
war. Drone strikes are often presented in the media with a focus on the
technology and precision rather than the human cost. By emphasizing the
accuracy of drone strikes and their ability to minimize collateral damage,
the visual culture surrounding drones helps to construct an image of
clean, efficient warfare. However, this representation obscures the
broader consequences of drone strikes, such as the psychological toll on
 civilian populations and the lack of accountability for errors or
indiscriminate killings.

Drones have transformed the very nature of warfare, making it more visual,
remote, and detached, creating a new kind of warfare culture that is deeply
embedded in the technological, ethical, and psychological dimensions of
modern conflict. This shift has significant consequences for the politics of
perception, the ethics of war, and the relationship between the military and
civilian populations.

Scopic Regime

1. The concept of the scopic regime, as developed by Martin Jay, refers to

the systematic organization of vision in a given society or era—
essentially how we collectively construct and control what we are able to
see, what we are allowed to see, and how that influences our
understanding of the world. A scopic regime determines the way the
world is made visible to us and organizes social perceptions around that
visibility.
2. In the contemporary visual culture, the scopic regime is shaped by the
proliferation of media technologies and surveillance tools. The regime
organizes what is visible, creating a visual hierarchy where some subjects
(such as military targets, political figures, or certain populations) are
made visible, while others are kept invisible or obscured. This structure
directly impacts how wars are represented, how violence is depicted, and
how information is controlled and manipulated.
3. The scopic regime of drone warfare involves both visibility and
invisibility: while soldiers and targets are visible to the operators, the
larger consequences of drone strikes—such as civilian deaths or
 psychological trauma—remain largely invisible to the public, especially
when filtered through media representations.

The Politics of Vision

1. The politics of vision in contemporary warfare, particularly as it pertains

to military technologies and global surveillance, directly connects to the
scopic regime. Visual power is not only about the ability to see but also
about the control of what is seen and who controls that vision.
Technologies like drones, satellite imagery, and cameras on the ground
all contribute to this political management of vision.