‘War on terror’: How 9/11 changed the language of conflict
Summary
The September 11 attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center and Washington, DC in 2001 ushered in a new era of conflict defined by the phrase “war on terror.” This broad term, used by President George W. Bush, legitimised the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and the expansion of domestic surveillance powers. A new vocabulary emerged to sanitise these actions, replacing terms like torture with “enhanced interrogation” and covert transfers with “extraordinary rendition.” Experts argue this language, which often divided the world into “good” and “evil,” created a conflict without a clear endpoint or geographical boundaries.
Key points
- President Bush declared the “war on terror” began with al-Qaeda but would not end until every terrorist group of global reach was defeated.
- Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 18, 2001, granting the president broad authority to use force against those linked to the attacks.
- Nearly 780 people passed through the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, with all but a handful later released without charge.
- The US-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003 based on claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found.
- Terms like “enhanced interrogation” and “extraordinary rendition” were used to describe torture and covert transfers, sanitising the violence.
Timeline
Terrorist attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center and Washington, DC.
Congress passes the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
President Bush addresses Congress, declaring the “war on terror.”
US-led invasion of Afghanistan begins.
US-led coalition invades Iraq.
““I think we can see the legacy of the war on terror everywhere in US politics today,””
Background
The “war on terror” was a global US-led campaign initiated in response to the 9/11 attacks, aiming to dismantle terrorist networks and prevent future attacks.
Why it matters
The language used to justify this campaign, such as “enhanced interrogation,” has had lasting implications for international law, human rights, and the perception of US foreign policy.