MEDIA AND WAR
The Just War theory has some moral contents, but it is significantly pragmatic in its character and application. Both sides of a war want to claim that their causes are just. They frame the war aims as ‘just’ to achieve support of the public and the international community. Even Generals project the justness of the war which tends the soldiers to fight longer and fiercer against the enemy. Hence, ‘justness’ or ‘rightness’ of a war are important for any military intervention. However, it is very difficult to define what is ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. I argue that elites give the interpretation of the ‘justness’ of a war and media coverage helps to reach that interpretation to the public. Existing literatures of public opinion argue that information about the successes or the failures, objectives of a mission, number of casualty or elite cues are variables regarding public support for the wars. I argue that elite consensus is most important variable for shaping public opinion concerning war and it determines rightness of waging, continuing and ending a war. In this paper, I analyze the relationship between elite consensus and media coverage in shaping public opinion about justness of military intervention.
Just War Theory: What makes it ‘Just’?
The Just War Theory has three phases; Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum. The elements of the Jus ad Bellum are - Competent Authority, Just Cause, Right Intention, Comparative Justice, Probability of Success, Last Resort and Proportionality. A legitimate authority will make the decision to resort to war to protect life from a real and imminent danger. The intention of fighting should be honorable and there should be ...
... middle of paper ...
...dies Review, 42, 283-312
• Fussell, (1989) Wartime, chapter 18 (pp. 267-298)
• Gartner, Scott. (2011), “On Behalf of a Grateful Nation: Conventionalized Images of Loss and Individual Opinion Change in War.” International Studies Quarterly 55, 545-561.
• Gelpi, C. (2010) “Performing on cue? The Formation of Public Opinion Toward War.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(1), pp. 88-116.
• Gelpi, C., Feaver, P.D. and Reifler, J. (2006) "Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq." International Security, 30(3), pp. 7-46.
• Jentleson, B.W., Britton, R.L. (1998). "Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force." Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), pp. 395-417.
• Mueller, "The Iraq Syndrome." (2005) Foreign Affairs, November/December, pp. 44-54.
• Sites, (1994) The Hot Zone, chapter 1 (pp. 5-27)
Petersen, MJ. “To what extent is public opinion and its management key to success in contemporary operations?”. Defence Research Paper, JSCSC, 2008/2009.
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
Susan Brewer brilliantly illustrates the historical facts of American government propagating violence. Scrutinizing the Philippine War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War the reader discovers an eerily Orwellian government manipulating her citizens instead of educating them. Brewer states, a "propaganda campaign seeks to disguise a paradoxical message: war is not a time for citizens to have an informed debate and make up their own minds even as they fight in the name of freedom to do just that." pg. 7 The Presidents of the United States and their administrations use propaganda, generation, after generation to enter into foreign wars for profit by manipulating the truth, which it is unnecessary for our government to do to her people.
Denise Grady’s (2006) article sound a strong wake up call for the American government and for the American public to re-evaluate their guiding principles towards war in Iraq and the continued presence of the American soldiers in the Iraqi soil. Grady delineated the enormous damages the war had costs in not only monetary terms but also the future of thousands of promising young and talented men and women sent in the Iraq War; that had no clear benefits to them or the American people.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s, the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view than in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period.
In conclusion, while books, photos, movies and other historical documentation can portray information or a message about wartime events, they will never be able to produce the feelings of those that were personally involved in wars have experienced. Yet, it is incorrect to criticize these writers. The information they reveal is still very important historical information. Even if a reader or viewer of this media cannot feel exactly the same emotions as those involved, they still often experience an emotional connection to the events being depicted. This is important, not only for the historical knowledge gained about wars, but also to understand the nature and futility of their occurrence.
Modell, John, and Timothy Haggerty. "The Social Impact of War." Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 205-24. Print.
The human race has long been assumed to have a warlike nature, involving itself in many violent endeavors. Philosophers such as Hobbs firmly asserted such an ideal throughout their teachings, their theories revolving around said notion. Yet some occasions throughout history point to the contrary, specifically those in which war was the unpopular choice. Perhaps the most exemplary of unpopular wars was the Vietnam War, which spurred a myriad of anti-war sentiment. These ideals manifested themselves in a wide variety of protests and draft evasion. Despite its unpopularity, the government pushed forward with its efforts to remain involved for a number of years, drawing more negative attention to the divide that existed between the popular opinion
Adams, Michael C. C. The "Best War Ever: America and World War II" Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 1994. Bailey, Ronald H. The Home Front, U.S.A. Time-Life Publishing, Chicago, IL. 1978 Bard, Mitchell G.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
Barnett, Correlli. World War II: Persuading the People. Orbis Publishing Limited, 1972. Pgs. 76 -- 102.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
When popular culture is associated with militarism it changes the way we regard war. Sports can do this in many different ways, for example advertisements in the Super Bowl is a massive way to get a large audience to hear a pro war commercial. After we attacked Iraq in the first Gulf War, “Super Bowl XXV featured a flurry of nationalism including American flag decals on the players’ helmets, images of soldiers in the desert throughout the pregame show, and a halftime address from President George H. W.
Stoessinger, John G. Why Nations Go to War, 7th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1998.
	The pounding of shells, the mines, the death traps, the massive, blind destruction, the acrid stench of rotting flesh, the communal graves, the charred bodies, and the fear. These are the images of war. War has changed over the centuries from battles of legions of ironclad soldiers enveloped in glimmering armor fighting for what they believe to senseless acts of guerrilla warfare against those too coward to be draft-dodgers. Those who were there, who experienced the terror first hand were deeply effected and changed forever. In their retinas, images of blood and gore are burned for the rest of their life.