The military industrial porn complex

William Hartung, author of the recent book "How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy?" maintains that the Pentagon is much more conscious in its outreach to popular culture venues. "It wants to give the impression that it's a new, improved Pentagon," he argues. "They have all this futuristic weaponry in the works -- like this cyber-soldier of the future who's basically a networked army of one -- and they want to hide the fact that they're still building all these Cold War weapons that they never took out of the budget. Rifles that see around corners, new space weapons -- it's what Buck Rogers was to a previous generation. It appeals to readers of science magazines, people who are addicted to gadgetry."

In the wake of Sept. 11 and a decision by its owner, Time4, to reorient the magazine toward young men, Popular Science created a new position for an aviation and military editor. In this position, Eric Adams has presided over an expansion of military coverage that takes its cue from the overwhelming popularity of military cover stories among its readership. "The fact that we've had the war and the post-9/11 increased visibility of the military warrants the additional coverage," he explains. "We try not to be gung ho about it. We try not to be particularly negative about it. This is technology that can ostensibly help minimize the impact of war -- the civilian casualties and the losses on our side."

While certainly more on the gung-ho side, Popular Mechanics is nevertheless very detailed in its coverage. Jim Wilson, science editor at P.M. and author of "Combat: The Great American War Planes," relies on expert writers from specialized magazines who often report from a first-person perspective. Other magazines have borrowed P.M.'s style (and, in the case of PopSci, some of P.M.'s editors). In many ways, P.M. set the standard of embeddedness that the Pentagon applied to other media over the last two years.

Being down in the trenches with the military lends a great deal of authenticity and immediacy to P.M.'s coverage. Lacking, however, is critical distance or a willingness to explore the negative consequences of military technology. This is what Susan Hassler of Spectrum describes as a "curious disconnect in popular culture" between, for instance, marveling at the Baghdad sky lit up from the bombing raids of 2003 and ignoring the effects of the bombing on the ground. This disconnect, more than the airbrushed photos or the unveiling of previously secret weapons programs, makes the treatment of military issues by popular science magazines pornographic. Stripped of its moral and political context, the technology is merely mechanical.

Public enthusiasm for war has already seemed to peak. In 2004, U.S. casualties continue to mount, Congress has threatened to trim the president's military budget request, and the Pentagon is just not as sexy as it was back in the blitzkrieg days last spring. And, indeed, the April 2004 issues of PopSci and P.M. have no articles on the military. Nor are there any Army recruitment ads. Instead, attractive couples pitch Viagra, Cialis, Testostazine, and Sildenaflex -- to remind us, perhaps, that popular science is always at the ready to bolster the power and aid the conquests of men.

• View blog reactions