War on Terror

The language practices of the “war of terrorism” involves a great amount of commitment and resources. This campaign was developed and became global in only two years. Without this commitment of social and political consensus the campaign would not have been possible. In order for this the campaign to arise quickly the manipulation of language was required. The following paper explains the discourse of language of the war on terrorism.

Language of politics is very important because words can affect everything in our everyday lives. This can also be true for lies and propaganda; therefore we can not always believe what is said or what we read. Practices are better understood when the language surrounding them are understood. The discourse of war on terrorism not only involves speeches and writings by politicians and other government officials but also symbols such as flags, Ground Zero, colors, etc. Political discourses are exercises of power in which they promote the finale truth and all other discourses are unheard.

Government officials, the mass media, law enforcement agencies present less then the full truth or give false information leaving members of the public in fear and confusion. This may be to protect the law enforcement agencies who are infiltrators. Also, the mass media will chose to present a story which is most appealing to the public and draws most of the attention. For example, on September 11, 2001, the media focused greatly on the catastrophe of the twin towers rather than putting more emphasis on the aircraft that crash landed into the pentagon. There are many different approaches and versions of realities that were available to describe the attacks of September 11 however, bureaucracies and agencies chose to accept one rather than another. Accounts of certain events also differ from certain news media because of political attitudes.

Social, cultural and political factors determine how we respond to certain events. To define is to exclude meaning that when choosing to understand a problem in society, one particular way is chosen among many – psychologically, religiously, politically, etc. When choosing that particular way to define a problem, any other possible way to define a problem is shut down.

The purpose of language and discourse is to promote support for the US military troops and to allow citizens to think that war is the only way to beat this tragedy. Provided that the language is used by individuals in power, they are able to eliminate all other meaning and definitions of certain events such as September 11, 2001.

These words were politically constructed to define the event that occurred but also to normalize the response of the administration and the public and to normalize the war that was expected to take place. Because of the language used to describe the events, the war on terrorism only seemed logic. In order to great this normalization, the events of the Cold War, Peal Harbor, World War II, civilization versus barbarianism and globalization were once again brought back into our reality and relations of “war on terrorism” to these previous events were made. Political language played an important role in which it was to prevent any other interpretations and meanings of the event that occurred. This was accessible through the void of meaning.

When the twin towers were crumbled to the ground many witnesses described the event as movie like, Bush himself had also stated that. With this attack came the void of meaning because there was a blurring of fiction and non-fiction. It was hard for citizens to interpret the events that occurred. Because there was a blur of what was real and unreal, the language used by Bush and other government officials seemed to be the only logic interpretation of the attack that had taken place. The attacks were constructed to create victim-hood. The language used was also to force citizens to remember they were the victims of this attack, and to create the myth that America was a primary victim. In every speech made by Bush and officials repeated terms such as victims, suffering, children, etc. also help to create the myth and reminder of the status of America and its citizens as victims.  This is important because victims can be forgiven and their anger can be understood by all. This may also help in understanding that the war was necessary and that their actions and actions of military troops will be forgiven. Unfortunately, consequences surfaced in the idea as America as primary victim. Human right violation took place in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. It is unfortunate that they use the excuse of being of victim to torture and violate human right acts and expect to be forgiven for their absurdness.

The main purpose of understanding discourse is to provide others with information of the ways language was used to construct the main identities of the terrorists and how they were created as evil doers, aliens, savages and barbarians, cruel and inhuman. The Americans on the other hand are constructed as innocent, victims, decent, loving, peaceful, united and heroic. The point of constructing two different identities between the terrorists and Americans is to be able to establish the boundary marker between “us” and them”.

The language used was carefully chosen to satisfy a number of political objectives and creating the boundary between the good and the evil was a main purpose in creating the narrative of the “war on terrorism” (Jackson, p 59). The state needed to gather and remain in unity and for this to occur, it was necessary for government to invest their time and money into maintaining and reproducing symbols of statehood. These symbols include national flags, anthems, postage stamps, pledges, and citizen ceremonies, etc. The continued use of symbols is to create the nation’s identity which separates those who belong to the United Stated and those who do not. According to Bush there is no neutral space. One is either with the US or they are with the terrorists.

The purpose of creating a boundary between the terrorists – evil, barbaric, inhuman and the Americans who are united, kind, peaceful and heroic is to create a demonization and dehumanization of the evil doers so that any kind of violence towards them because acceptable because they are not human and therefore there is no need to follow any kind of human right policies. They do not need to follow these policies or accept them in any means. An example of this is the prisoner abuse scandal in 2004. The language used to dehumanize the terrorists and anyone who supported them encouraged the soldiers and prison guards to think of the enemies as evil, wild animals, savages etc which in turn led to the mistreatment of the enemies. Bush also uses language in his speeches to describe the terrorists as foreign diseases such as cancer cells or parasites affecting the human condition which once again dehumanizes the terrorists.

Americans are innocent even those who are battling in Iraq and those who are torturing and abusing prisoners. Because the terrorists are constructed as savages and barbarians, the abusive acts towards the enemies are understandable and only seem logic because the Americans are the victims. They are heroic and they are peaceful and they fight for their freedom. According to Bush and his officials, the Americans do nothing wrong and did nothing to deserve such horrendous and loathsome acts.

The discourse reconstructed the attacks as the start of a new age of super terrorism where weapons of mass destruction are used by the terrorists to try and kill millions of people. This language is indeed to created to maximize fear of the public and this is done by using language that creates an image of terrifying Hollywood movies such as the denotation of a nuclear bomb in a city or the release of a deadly chemical which results in the death of million of people. In this way it normalizes terror and the amount of times these horrifying words and images appear in speeches is enough to create the fear and terror itself.