War Games and Gaffes

During the two Gulf wars - with battle-fields beamed into living rooms - the idea of conflict as a video-game became a popular metaphor. Gulf war II won't literally become one, though, after Sony admitted this week to an "error of judgment" in attempting to trademark the phrase "shock and awe" for the title of a future release.

But there were fewer scruples at the adult-toy manufacturer Hero Builders, which has just released in America a soldier-doll of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the former Iraqi information minister, famous for attempting a level of spin more associated with Torvill and Dean than Alastair Campbell. Apparently if you pull a little string in its back, it crackles out Sahafisms about stomachs burning in hell and the impossibility of American infidels taking Baghdad.

Considered alongside the numerous movie versions of Saving Private Jessica in pre-production, all touch on the question of what cultural and artistic exploitation of the conflict is appropriate.

Let's start with the withdrawal of "shock and awe" for PS2. This is irritating first because there was potential for a great American legal case in which the Pentagon claimed it created the term and sued for a share of the videogame royalties.

But Sony backed down, we assume, because of a feeling that the use of a phrase denoting the flattening of Baghdad was in bad taste. This seems an odd concern for society suddenly to have. Outside of computer simulations of sport, the videogame market is essentially a bad-taste exploration of varieties of violence. Many top-sellers offer the possibility of crashing cars at homicidal speeds, taking inspiration from ghetto violence and street crime. A game which takes its name and nature from a war-time blitzkrieg would have been a logical extension of the form.

There would perhaps be a stronger moral case for pulling from the market the information minister doll, especially following recent reports that al-Sahaf may have hanged himself. The toy company - which also sells "Saddam Insane" and "Babbling Osama" - is appealing to the instinct in victorious nations to gloat and vilify the enemy. It's a Guy Fawkes moment.

Yet Saddam and Bin Laden were demonstrably evil. The father of all spin doctors was simply a man doing his job too well even by the standards of a regime of lies. If he has killed himself - an act of horrible honour in the circumstances - then the toy, websites and T-shirts immortalising his massacre of the meaning of words become considerably less funny.

The inevitable slew of movies called Saving Private Jessica will almost inevitably be terrible but raise a couple of intriguing challenges for screenwriters. Since Vietnam, America has specialised in movies (Born on the 4th of July, Apollo 13, Black Hawk Down) which repackage American catastrophes as triumphs or - in the case of Saving Private Ryan - give European history a US skew.

Now given a military operation which actually can be presented as an American success, it's terrible to imagine the heights of jingoistic simplicity to which the films might rise. Press reports of Private Jessica's rescue highlight the courageous contribution of a local Iraqi. How fascinating it will be to see if, on celluloid, this is somehow reassigned to Tom Hanks.

More promising cultural reflection is likely to come from the Imperial War Museum's scheme for sending artists to conflicts. The liberation of Afghanistan is memorialised in some excellent photographs by Paul Seawright and video installations by Langlands & Bell. Baghdad has already produced such vivid newspaper and television images that it will be hard for artists to compete. Ideally, Jake and Dinos Chapman would be sent to Baghdad to continue their post-Goya explorations of war.

The biggest cultural decision is Tony Blair's over what victory parade or celebration there should be. Yesterday he told the Sun newspaper that he favours some sort of cavalcade. But if he seems to crow or claim God's blessing, a leader who had a sure-footed war risks reanimating his enemies and alienating his more anguished backers.

None of the obvious models - the second world war, the Falklands - apply because this war began against significant dissent and the Iraqi people are supposed to be the victors. Also, any Christian element in the proceedings risks being inflammatory at home and abroad.

Blair's spin doctors need to consider carefully if support for the war was deep enough to sustain a parade. Strong opinion poll support for troops in action is a standard British reaction, a residue of the second world war, when dissent was identified as dangerous. On this occasion, the postwar mood may be "Relief!" rather than "Rejoice!"

With the risk of protesters raining on his parade, perhaps Blair would be more sensible simply to buy an al-Sahaf doll on the internet and keep it as a private souvenir.