The Political Context: International and Domestic Security Concerns

Abstract

The call to a Global War on Terror was logically implausible but rhetorically effective in its propagandistic evocation of a worldwide threat which required a resolute response. It conjured up a binary world of friends and enemies. Who, except the practitioners or sponsors of terror(ism), could eschew the challenge to destroy the sources of this evil? In the real sphere of international politics the concept of a Global War on Terror was as disingenuous as it was simplistic, but as a mobilizing ideological slogan or as a shorthand label it was endlessly reproduced in the Western media, preparing the way for George W. Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war against the rogue states deemed to support terrorism. It set the tone of international relations for the remainder of Bush’s presidency, before the terminology was discarded by Barack Obama’s new administration in 2009, even though many of the associated policies remained in place (Zalman and Clarke, 2009). While it was current, the apparent success of the Global War on Terror as a political watchword also offered other states the opportunity to identify their policies towards troublesome neighbours and/or hostile groups within their own borders as part of the global struggle. The Global War on Terror extended in principle to any source of terrorism. However, the focus of discourse and policy was heavily concentrated on radical, anti-Western Muslim groups and the states which aided them. Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ threatened to turn from myth into reality.