The ‘war on terror’ rhetoric: A comparison of counter-terrorism language between four U.S. presidents

Keywords

No Thumbnail Available

Issue Date

2024-07-03

Language

en

Document type

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Title

ISSN

Volume

Issue

Startpage

Endpage

DOI

Abstract

The 9/11 attacks left a large impact on the United States and the rest of the world. George W. Bush used strong words to condemn the attacks and legitimise new policies. He started the ‘war on terror’, which is broadly considered a failure. Obama and his successors have stated that they would change the language and policy regarding terrorism. However, it seems as though the ‘war on terror’ rhetoric has remained consistent. This thesis aims to analyse and compare counter-terrorism rhetoric between George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald J. Trump, and Joseph R. Biden, in order to determine if and in what way these presidents used this rhetoric to influence the public over the last two decades. The analysis is done through a qualitative, deductive content analysis of four selected speeches per president. The results show that the ‘war on terror’ rhetoric changes little to none throughout the presidencies. It is, however, remarkable that the ‘war on terror’ is hardly discussed by Biden. The literature explaining consistency in rhetoric through national identity and political myth seems robust based on these findings. The literature on habit and the “blob” might explain the results as well, although Trump himself is not part of the “blob” and remains consistent, while Biden shows the opposite. This might mean that Trump listened to his administration’s officials, and Biden changed the grand strategy due to an exogenous shock, i.e. the Great Power Competition. Another explanation for changing rhetoric might also be public opinion.

Description

Citation

Faculty

Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen