Discourse analysis of the US War on Terror policy in Afghanistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.jhsms/3.1.34Keywords:
Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, strategic depth, geostrategic overstretch, legitimacy, paradigm shift, war failure, ontologyAbstract
This paper discusses discourse analysis on the “war on terror” after 9/11. It argues that the USA framed a specific discourse based on securing and legitimizing its political and strategic objectives in the war on terror in Afghanistan. This study uses the qualitative method of discourse analysis to analyse official texts and key statements by the U.S. Government on the war on terror after 9/11. It explains that the U.S. discourse on the war on terror resulted from the geo-strategic overstretch policy. The withdrawal of the U.S. from Afghanistan was a failure of discourse; however, it questioned the rationale of the protracted war on terror. Political and strategic discourses help to frame a policy in an ideational perspective while the reversal of discourses indicates a paradigm shift based on sheer rationality. The study has far-reaching implications for future research particularly in the case of hegemonic discourse which tends to fail or reverse the U.S. discourse about countering terrorism in Afghanistan. It reveals the fact that discourses are constructed much for public consumption and the U.S. strategy of withdrawal from Afghanistan is primarily based on domestic economic and political considerations.
References
An, N. (2020). Geopolitical visions from the mass Chinese? Internet discourses of terrorism and the US. In Confucian Geopolitics (pp. 147-172). Springer.
Cortell, A. P., & Davis Jr, J. W. (2000). Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: A research agenda. International Studies Review, 2(1), 65-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00184
Cox, M. (2002). September 11th and US hegemony—or will the 21st century be American too? International Studies Perspectives, 3(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3577.00079
Crawford, H. (2018). Cost of the post-9/11 wars: Lethality and the need for transparency. Brown University. Cost of War, Brown University. https://www.antiwar.com/pdfs/BrownUni.pdf
Foucault, M. (2010). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Vintage Books.
Holland, J. (2012). Selling the war on terror: Foreign policy discourses after 9/11. Taylor & Francis.
Jonegard, I. G. (2019). The implications of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan Four scenarios. Swedish Defence Research Institute.
Lum, C., Kennedy, L. W., & Sherley, A. J. (2006). The effectiveness of counter?terrorism strategies: Campbell systematic review summary. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2006.2
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894-904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084615
Michaels, J. H. (2013). The discourse trap, and the US Military: From the war on terror to the surge. Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.macmillanlearning.co.uk/resources/sample-chapters/9780230372047_sample.pdf
Myrdal, G. (2022). An American dilemma; the Negro problem and modern democracy. Pantheon Books.
Nye, J. S. (2002). The paradox of American power: Why the world’s only superpower can’t go it alone. Oxford University.
Omidi, A., & Mobini, Z. (2022). A discourse analysis of the conflicting implications of terrorism: The Iranian and US perspectives. Chinese Political Science Review, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-021-00206-0
Smith, M. L. R., & Neumann, P. (2005). Missing the plot? Intelligence and discourse failure. Orbis, 49(1), 95-107.
Stewart, R., & Knaus, G. (2011). Can intervention work? W.W. Norton & Company.
Wallace, W. (2002) American hegemony: European dilemmas. Political Quarterly, 73(1),105-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.73.s1.8
Woodward, B. (2010). Obama’s wars. Simon & Schuster.
Yamin, T. (2016). Examining Pakistan’s strategic decision to support the US war on terror. Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. https://www.issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tughral-Yamin-35-No.2.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Please click here for details about the Licensing and Copyright policies of IDEA-PG.
