Brandon Murphy
COMM 3310
Final Paper
April 21, 2014
Analysis of George W. Bush’s Declaration of War on Terror
Introduction
Perhaps one of the most well-known and important examples of political discourse in my generation’s lifetime was George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. This speech not only set the tone for how America planned to deal with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, but also set the precedent for how the world views and combats terrorism to this day. With a war still going on in the Middle East and acts of terrorism being executed worldwide on a daily basis, this speech has held true on its promise that this would be a long battle that will take the world’s cooperation and determination. This speech also helped to bring terrorism and the term “war on terror” into the global mainstream by dominating all media outlets.
In this essay, I will analyze the rhetoric that was used in this speech to incite action and support from the American people. Scholarly articles will provide support and further analysis of the tactics and messaging used in this speech to bring the nation together. Specifically, patriotism and religion were large parts of the rhetoric used. Finally, I will analyze the media’s role following the speech and how the media was manipulated following the declaration of war throughout the Bush administration.
Patriotism and Religion
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, President George W. Bush aimed to bring the nation together by establishing a sense of unity and vitality among United States citizens. According to Graham, Keenan, and Dowd, the speech employed four main factors that have been used in many other “call to arms” speeches through history such as Queen Elizabeth I’s and Adolf Hitler’s speeches. These factors are as follows: appeal to a legitimate power source that is external to the orator and is inherently good, appeal to the historical importance of the culture in which the discourse is situated, the construction of an evil other, and an appeal for unification behind the legitimating external power source (Graham et.al, 2004).
Appeal to a Legitimate Power Source
In his declaration of war on terror speech, President Bush instilled a sense of patriotism by rallying Americans together with a common purpose: to get justice for what happened on September 11th. He reminded the citizens that terrorists could shake the foundations of our buildings, but not our country (Tristam, 2001). By doing so, he made Americans feel unstoppable and powerful. This attitude translated across countries to our allies and gave citizens the power source they needed to stand behind the president following such a tragic event.
Appeal to the Historical Importance of the Culture in which the Discourse is Situated
With such a surprise attack, President Bush needed to set the precedent for dealing with events such as this. Nearly 15 years later, the actions but into place following the attacks are still going on. The war against terror is still being fought. The decisions made established the historical precedent that acts of terror would not be tolerated and would not go unpunished.
The Construction of an Evil Other
Throughout his speech, Bush repeatedly mentioned Al Qaeda and the Taliban by placing the blame for the attacks on the two groups. He gave the public someone to “root against” and someone to blame, thus further strengthening the patriotism among the citizens. He also demanded that terrorists be handed over and not given asylum unless the countries wanted to face the same fate (Tristam, 2001).
Appeal for Unification Behind the Legitimating Power Source
Bush also reminded the American people that this would be a long battle. However, he was confident that the strength and vitality of the American people would ensure that the battle be won. It was in this way that he encouraged unification behind the war on terror.
The second major effective tactic Bush used in his speech, argues Stramer, was the relationship between the war on terror and religion. In his speech, Bush was mindful to say that we were not at war with Muslims or anyone of the Islamic faith. However, Bush specifically promoted and associated “western values” with the fight against terrorist groups. Perhaps the two most common were democracy and freedom. He went on to say that America was fighting for freedom, and that freedom is God’s gift. In a sense, he was saying that America was doing God’s work (Stramer, 2010). This was an effective tactic for addressing a predominantly Christian nation. However, it was a risky tactic considering the different religions practiced in the United States, and the fact that we were about to go to war in a predominantly Islamic part of the world. The use of religion, while effective in the US, caused many of the Islamic faith to feel that they were being blamed despite Bush explicitly mentioning that the war was not on Islam, but extremist groups. The ambiguity surrounding Islam and extremist groups still has some people today thinking that all Muslims are terrorists—from glances on the street to more in depth airport screenings. Despite its effectiveness at the time, it has changed the way Americans view those who practice Islam.
Mediatic Diplomacy and the FCC
With the ever-changing media landscape of the 21st century, 9/11 brought forth new issues with regards to coverage of political issues. Post-9/11, there were many restrictions on the journalism departments of news media (McChesney, 2002). Merging media conglomerates made it easier for monopolized messaging to become the norm despite FCC regulations. Kellner argues that during the time following 9/11, the corporate news media aided the Bush administration by instilling fear of terrorism into the American people in order to gain support for the right-wing agenda. This, Kellner says, fostered a politics of lying and over exaggerating the threats (Kellner, 2007). This section addresses some of these claims with regards to diplomacy and FCC regulations.
In order to gain public support for the war on terror, Bush had to unite the American people at a time of great tragedy. One of the biggest ways he was able to do so was through the use of the media. Consolidation of media outlets has made it easier for the government to influence the messaging. Following the attacks on 9/11, new strategic communications organizations were put into place at the Pentagon and the White House. Between these and the news media, the Bush administration was able to frame the context of the messaging and reporting on the war, a term called “mediatic diplomacy” (Aspiroz, 2013). They were able to frame the information in order to make sure that only approved communication went through. This strategy was a great idea in that it allowed a filter; they didn’t further anger the people who were against the war, but also did not disappoint those who supported it. While the government cannot please everyone, especially during war time, the use of framing and the alternation of information and entertainment stories made the reporting and progress of the war seem better than it was at times (Azpiroz, 2013).
One of the largest controversies regarding the reporting of the war on terror during the Bush administration was the lack of regulation and reporting by the FCC. From 2001-2009, the FCC regularly underreported on the level of monopolization and concentration of the news media industry (Kunz, 2012). Similarly to the previously mentioned framing concept, the Republicans and the Bush administration were able to push their agenda by turning a blind eye to the lack of reporting by the FCC. This level of media manipulation undoubtedly goes on with every administration; however, at the time of a new war following terrorist attacks on home soil and so many American civilian deaths, the citizens deserved to know the full story.
One way the administration tried to make media’s reporting more transparent was by embedding reporters in the war zone. This led to more credible, first-hand reporting and led to a better relationship between the military and the media (Lordan, 2003). The use of these embedded reporters helped to combat some of the loss of credibility the administration had built up with the American people as well as international publics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bush administration used effective communication tactics in order to unite the American people after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The way the media reported on the war on terror at its onset and through the entire administration was greatly influenced by the monopolization and conglomeration of the media outlets and the power of the government. As we have talked about in class, the media had somewhat lost its watchdog function and had in a sense become an extension of the military. With the use of embedded reporters, the relationship between the two grew and while some people saw this as more credible reporting, others saw it as the government having the media in its back pocket. However, no matter which way you look at it, the media and the government influence each other equally. The information that the public receives assuredly benefits both the media outlet and serves the purpose of the current administration.