Wartime Communication

Modes of Communication

War has always been a source of inspiration for advancements in communication technology. For example, the walkie-talkie was developed during the Second World War. During the 20th century, wartime communication predominantly referred to functional modes (connecting planes to the ground, coordinating strikes and ambushes, reporting needs to medics) as well as informational elements (how professional war reporters, photographers, and politicians frame the war effort to public audiences). But the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan introduced a previously overlooked social dimension to wartime communication through the prevalence of mobile, digital communication technology among troops in the field. The 2003 prisoner abuse photos taken at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and the 2010 “Wikileak” that released thousands of classified documents to the public domain are two examples of the way increased opportunities for sociality (enabled by advancements in mobile, digital, and social media) has led to more porous boundaries between the war front and the home front.

Prior to this millennium, military officials and professional war reporters were the principal arbiters of war’s image and representation. As such, much of the existing scholarship on wartime communication evaluates professionally produced texts for their persuasive force or epistemological contribution to civilian, public audiences. By the early 2000s, however, developments in participatory media, which coincided with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enabled troops on the ground to document and disseminate the war for themselves. In other words, just as television defined wartime communication during the Vietnam War and the First Gulf War, the Internet defined wartime communication in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Outlooks and Approaches

In addition to the three types of wartime communication—functional, social, and informational—there are also three main fields of inquiry within the study of wartime communication. The first critiques public and political rhetoric surrounding war. The second focuses on mass mediated coverage of war. The third examines the documentary efforts of the troops themselves. Each outlook suggests respective texts and methodological approaches.