Follow us on social

google cta
Cnn-syria-2-e1689792787493

How media makes impact of US forever wars invisible

A new book by Norman Solomon breaks down the ways the devastation suffered by civilians rarely comes into public view.

Analysis | Media
google cta
google cta

Norman Solomon’s new book, “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of its Military Machine,” discusses components of what the public is allowed to know and what is carefully excluded from view about the perpetual wars of the post-9/11 period.

Beyond this principal topic, the book also touches on a range of subjects related to American militarism. Solomon is a journalist who has written previously about U.S. wars, most notably “War Made Easy,” a book that focused on deceitful justifications for war.

Solomon’s undertaking provides a necessary perspective for comprehending post-9/11 wars. Sustaining public support is a requirement for a global power that regularly employs its coercive instruments and is occasionally subject to democratic checks. The work of legitimation is ongoing, demanding not only a high level of concealment but also efforts to shape that which is accepted without question and considered unworthy of attention and concern.

Dissenting views challenging dominant narratives are ignored or ridiculed. Information that counters official accounts is denied, minimized, and neutralized. Leakers and even news organizations that report “top secrets” are vilified as threatening national security and face potential prosecution. The recent death of Daniel Ellsberg reminds us of the occasional courageous insider who risks everything to tell the truth about war.

Solomon demonstrates how in recent U.S. wars the violent consequences for civilians are hidden from public view. The toll — counted in deaths, injuries, destroyed infrastructure and related malnutrition and disease — is far more extensive than Americans are led to believe. Harms inflicted on civilians and their immediate environment can last for generations. Solomon is at his best in discussing how the media ignores or is complicitous in defusing these consequences. I will briefly summarize four of his most significant topics.

First, unless large numbers of U.S. troops are deployed, killed, and injured, the media pays minimal attention to the ongoing violence of America’s military operations. This includes secretive actions undertaken by Special Operations Command or the intelligence agencies, the increasing reliance on drone warfare and other kinds of airstrikes, and the expanding utilization of contractors. America’s wars without end are waged largely out of sight and out of mind.   

Second, even in wars extensively covered by the media, journalists rarely report the consequences for civilians living in target nations. Solomon reviews several reasons for media complicity, including editorial control, the perceived duty among journalists to support the war effort and support the troops, journalists’ dependence on information provided by the military, and the risk of alienating their sources.    

Third, and more extensively, Solomon provides documentation for media participation in promulgating a Manichean view of America’s wars. The language of good and evil, humane and inhumane, is pervasive, applied to both the necessity for war and how the enemy uses barbaric tactics in contrast to America’s civilized conduct of war. The enemy kills civilians purposely and commits other war crimes; the U.S. kills civilians only by accident, a matter of “collateral damage” — the claimed unintended, accidental, and regrettable byproduct of defeating the enemy.

Solomon counters that in fact, military strategists expect large numbers of civilian deaths as the inevitable result of war tactics and the lethality of the weapons employed in war.   

In a chapter entitled “‘Humane’ Wars,” Solomon demolishes the assumption that the U.S. occupies the moral high ground. He illustrates his argument by examining the tragedy of lost lives and forced displacement resulting from two decades of war in Afghanistan and how the continuing sanctions, including freezing Afghan government accounts, are responsible for the many millions of Afghans who face life-threatening malnutrition and starvation. Solomon argues that the near total silence among the political and media establishment about these direct consequences of war by other means should undermine any claim about how the U.S. intervention was about protecting Afghan human rights.

Fourth, media personalities, coerced by editors or acting on their own, become cheerleaders for war. Celebrating war and the soldiers who “sacrifice” with life and limb often follows from journalists’ own nationalistic impulses and their infatuation with the “shock and awe” of American military power or from what they expect that their viewers or readers want to hear.

Beyond his important discussion of media-political-military collusion in sanitizing America’s wars, Solomon also touches on some other ways that America’s seemingly endless wars are legitimized and their harmful consequences ignored.  

For example, he links the pervasive discounting of harms to civilians with the enduring effects of racism applied on a global scale. He comments on the contradiction between the outsized media attention given to the suffering of Ukrainian victims of Russia’s aggression in contrast to how wars and their tragic consequences outside of Europe are thought to be normal and expected. He mentions other double standards in a world of friends and enemies, such as claims about defending a “rules-based international order,” “territorial integrity” and sovereignty, citing the example of billions of dollars of military aid going to Israel despite its “systematically inhuman treatment of Palestinian people.”

Solomon also argues that the “costs of war” on American society are marginalized by the media. He includes the extent of traumatic brain injury among U.S. soldiers, domestic violence in families of post-9/11 veterans, the increase in violence more broadly, right-wing political violence, the rise of MAGA populism, the militarization of the police, and the detrimental effects of outsized military budgets on needed social spending.

American militarism depends on a culture of compliance with war. Solomon provides a valuable account through the lens of what is made invisible. His account helps readers grasp the mechanisms of invisibility and the moral consequences of refusing to grapple with the harms inflicted. Yet explaining the war culture is no easy task and requires more sustained attention than offered in this book.

If we can ever hope to dismantle this nation’s attachment to militarism, the larger challenge remains — illuminating the deep cultural and historical roots of Americans’ disposition toward war. We need to better comprehend how, despite all their horrific consequences, wars come to be seen as necessary and good, and commemorated and remembered. From myth creation (such as idolizing the warrior and the nation at war or the “indispensable” or “exceptional” qualities attributed to this nation’s global role) to the violence that has coursed through American culture from the beginning, war-making, both visible and invisible, requires and is made possible by a culture invested in war.


Image: Screen grab via cnn.com
google cta
Analysis | Media
V-22 Osprey
Top Image Credit: VanderWolf Images/ Shutterstock
Osprey crash in Japan kills at least 1 US soldier

Military aircraft accidents are spiking

Military Industrial Complex

Military aviation accidents are spiking, driven by a perfect storm of flawed aircraft, inadequate pilot training, and over-involvement abroad.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D- Mass.) office reported this week, the rate of severe accidents per 100,000 flight hours, was a staggering 55% higher than it was in 2020. Her office said mishaps cost the military $9.4 billion, killed 90 service members and DoD civilian employees, and destroyed 89 aircraft between 2020 to 2024. The Air Force lost 47 airmen to “preventable mishaps” in 2024 alone.

The U.S. continues to utilize aircraft with known safety issues or are otherwise prone to accidents, like the V-22 Osprey, whose gearbox and clutch failures can cause crashes. It is currently part of the ongoing military buildup near Venezuela.

Other mishap-prone aircraft include the Apache Helicopter (AH-64), which saw 4.5 times more accidents in 2024 than 2020, and the C-130 military transport aircraft, whose accident rate doubled in that same period. The MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter was susceptible to crashes throughout its decades-long deployment, but was kept operational until early 2025.

Dan Grazier, director of the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform Program, told RS that the lack of flight crew experience is a problem. “The total number of flight hours U.S. military pilots receive has been abysmal for years. Pilots in all branches simply don't fly often enough to even maintain their flying skills, to say nothing of improving them,” he said.

To Grazier’s point, army pilots fly less these days: a September 2024 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that the average manned aircraft crew flew 198 flight hours in 2023, down from 302 hours flown in 2011.

keep readingShow less
Majorie Taylor Greene
Top photo credit" Majorie Taylor Greene (Shutterstock/Consolidated News Service)

Marjorie Taylor Greene to resign: 'I refuse to be a battered wife'

Washington Politics

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th district, who at one time was arguably the politician most associated with Donald Trump’s “MAGA” movement outside of the president himself, announced in a lengthy video Friday night that she would be retiring from Congress, with her last day being January 5.

Greene was an outspoken advocate for releasing the Epstein Files, which the Trump administration vehemently opposed until a quick reversal last week which led to the House and Senate quickly passing bills for the release which the president signed.

keep readingShow less
European Union Ukraine
Top image credit: paparazzza via shutterstock.com

Is the EU already trying to sabotage new Ukraine peace plan?

Europe

A familiar and disheartening pattern is emerging in European capitals following the presentation of a 28-point peace plan by the Trump administration. Just as after Donald Trump’s summit with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska this past August, European leaders are offering public lip service to Trump’s efforts to end the war while maneuvering to sabotage any initiative that deviates from their maximalist — and unattainable — goals of complete Russian capitulation in Ukraine.

Their goal appears not to be to negotiate a better peace, but to hollow out the American proposal until it becomes unacceptable to Moscow. That would ensure a return to the default setting of a protracted, endless war — even though that is precisely a dynamic that, with current battleground realities, favors Russia and further bleeds Ukraine.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.