by Michelle Martin

Finally, ordinary Americans have picked the right medium to convey their political message: they’re fighting images with images. Although not a resolution to the war in Iraq, promoting understanding and exerting solidarity is definitely a step in the right direction.

Anti-war activists are sending media outlets in the Middle East photos that show Americans holding mostly hand-made signs. Some criticize U.S. actions in the war while others extend sympathy to Iraqi civilians. For example, one banner being held by 11 people in Vancouver, Wash., reads, “With deep shame, we apologize for the suffering our country has brought to the people of Iraq.”

About 400 pictures came into the peace group Fellowship of Reconciliation from more than 100 U.S. cities and towns. The photos are intended to counterpoint the horrendous pictures of Americans abusing Iraqi prisoners.

This choice of medium gives me hope. Language, religion, culture and ideology are all divisive in the West’s relationship with the Middle East; however, images, with their ability to be universally understood, may successfully convey the compassion and understanding (given that Middle Eastern news outlets release the photos and translate the signs correctly) that this war seems to be lacking.

Images have played a vital role in the war in Iraq to date, but until now they have primarily provoked disgust, hatred and fear. The power of the Abu Ghraib prison photos is undeniable. They challenged people to confront the moralistic well-being of humankind, faith in the American military, belief in the political system, and the concept of fostering freedom, to name a few. Suddenly the so-called enemy wasn’t quite so clear. Whether an opinion started as a black-and-white dichotomy or not, the end result was likely on a grey-scale.

These images burned bridges. Retaliation from rebel Iraqi groups was swift and startling. They too used images to exert panic by videotaping the beheadings of foreigners and posting them on the Internet.

Images are changing the way public support is won in war times, especially since new media technology enables quick transmission of information worldwide (although accessibility still largely depends on someone’s socio-economic situation).

Until now, the most widely distriputive images of war have been images of terror (forgive me for using this highly subjective word). But now these anti-war activists are using new media technology to depict a positive image of the West to Iraqi citizens.

They are distributing burned CDs of anti-war photos, without relying on traditional news organizations for exposure. The information age has changed the way in which public opinion is formed, as news corporations and the government have less and less control over publicly consumed information and images. And as often as public opinion is impacted, so too is government policy.

Emotion-provoking images can shape public opinion, and a single image can erupt a diverse array of political issues. I doubt that the beheadings in Iraq would have initiated nearly as much political engagement if they were only described in words, as opposed to publicized as a media spectacle.

In the age of the image, the written word does have its place. However, the universal appeal of images is the most suitable medium for conveying political messages across cultures. The actions taken by the Fellowship are symbolic of a new technological age that will continue to shape the actions of the powers that be.