‘War on terror’: How 9/11 changed the language of conflict | Human Rights News
The Transformative Language of the War on Terror: Impact on U.S. Policies and Society
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center, a new lexicon emerged within U.S. politics that redefined traditional concepts of warfare and security. Terms such as “enhanced interrogation,” “extraordinary rendition,” and “enemy combatants” quickly entered mainstream dialogue as the United States undertook unprecedented military actions and expanded its surveillance capabilities.
At the heart of this evolution was the phrase “war on terror,” a broad designation that became the foundation for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Experts argue that this new vocabulary not only sanitized the reality of violence but also dehumanized the individuals targeted by U.S. actions.
“As the terminology shifted, so too did the implications of our security policies,” said Leonie Jackson, a senior international relations lecturer at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. “We can still see the legacy of the war on terror manifesting in today’s political landscape.”
A War Without Definite Boundaries
Nine days after the September 11 attacks, then-President George W. Bush urged Congress that the war on terror would extend beyond al-Qaeda, stating, “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed shortly thereafter, granting Bush broad authority to combat those linked to the attacks.
Unlike conventional warfare, the war on terror lacked a specific enemy or geographic boundary. As Christopher Baker-Beall from Bournemouth University noted, “Terrorism is a tactic, not a governing entity or specific location.” This lack of definition resulted in a conflict without a clear endpoint.
Bush’s rhetoric further polarized international relations; he famously posited that nations were either with the U.S. or aligned with terrorists. Words like “evil” became commonplace in his rhetoric, marking a narrative that created a dichotomy of good versus evil on the global stage.
Rebranding of Torture and Surveillance Policies
The invasion of Afghanistan occurred less than a month after the September 11 attacks, followed by the military intervention in Iraq in 2003 based on claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were later proven unfounded. The war on terror expanded into a vast network of military and covert operations worldwide.
Approximately 780 detainees passed through Guantanamo Bay, with many individuals held for years without charges. Clive Stafford Smith, a British-American human rights lawyer who assisted detainees, described the detention camp as a “sorry lie.” Most detainees were released without formal charges, and some endured two decades of uncharged imprisonment.
In addition to Guantanamo, the CIA established “black sites” for secret detention. Abusive interrogation methods were rebranded as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This bureaucratic language created a moral distance that allowed leaders to undertake controversial actions while maintaining a facade of legality.
Jackson emphasized that this euphemistic language helped to obscure the ramifications of such practices. “It rendered ordinary citizens increasingly numb to the dehumanizing ways in which violence was contextualized,” she explained.
Transformation of Domestic Security Infrastructure
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act, significantly expanding the government’s surveillance capabilities. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 centralized various national security agencies and reshaped immigration and domestic policing.
“This transition marked a shift from responding to actual threats towards preempting potential future threats,” Baker-Beall said. This new approach broadened the scope of security policy, leading to intensified surveillance and increased scrutiny of minority communities, particularly among Muslims.
Tahir Abbas, a criminology professor at Aston University, described a “boomerang effect” where perceptions of risk associated with Muslim communities led to normalized practices of surveillance and state control, justified by mere suspicion.
As the U.S. political landscape continued to evolve, President Barack Obama signaled a shift in discourse, declaring the “war on terrorism” over during a speech in 2013. However, the institutions created during this time have persisted, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has been implicated in aggressive enforcement actions.
Enduring Legacy of the War on Terror
Although the language associated with the war on terror may have diminished in recent years, its impacts remain deeply rooted in U.S. policy and societal attitudes. The Trump administration’s use of terms such as “preemptive” and “precision” strikes echoes the earlier rhetoric of military intervention.
Jackson pointed out that while the circumstances differ, the foundational argument remains: “We cannot afford to wait for the threat to materialize, so action has to be taken now.” This mentality continues to influence U.S. policies and public perceptions.
In summary, the legacy of the war on terror has reshaped the U.S. political landscape, creating a framework for viewing entire communities as potential threats. The language once used to justify military operations and surveillance still casts a long shadow over American society.
