 |
Narrating Global Preeminence: U.S. Elites and National Discourse of the War on Terrorism
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
United States, a document released near the one-year anniversary of 9-11, states “new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous”. The document goes on to state that the United States will use force to “preemp emerging threats”, and “will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense”. Global preeminence means being able to use military force at any time and any place against those who are believed to pose a current or even future threat.
The doctrine of preemptive strikes was discussed in an earlier speech on June 1, 2002. Interestingly, there was very little political commentary on it by media elites. For their was general consensus that it was a “necessary response (WSJ oped, 6-13-02). A June 10, 2002 editorial from the conservative Wall Street Journal, praised the first strike policy as, “the way to endure real homeland security”. An editorial from the liberal New York Times was characteristic of its overall response to the War on Terrorism—supporting its basic necessity and having merely friendly advice for Bush on how it is implemented. While the WSJ criticisms were more generally along the lines of the WOT does not go far enough. The NYT editorial cautioned that the policy not go too far and be used “carte blanche”, but stated, “
it makes sense to strike first”
against terrorists.
We are told by U.S. political and media elites that the 9-11 attacks were an irrational attack on “American” values, the values of global civilization. The national story of 9-11 is told as a moral tale, a quintessential struggle of good vs. evil, that will be won by the nation of good, “America”, which will purge the “dark threat” of terrorism “from our country and from the world (Bush, 6-01-02)” by ‘shining its light in the darkness’(Bush, 9-11-02). The national discourse of the War on Terrorism continues a historical national narrative of manifest destiny. This is an old doctrine that portrays the U.S. as a nation chosen by history and God to extend its blessings of freedom upon the rest of the world, by force if necessary. Thus doing so, it would be fulfilling its burden as a morally superior nation to help others that were inferior and to let its light shine around the globe.
However, Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback, stresses that, “contrary to what people in Washington and the media are saying, that this was not an attack on the United States: this was an attack on American foreign policy (Shaw 2001).” It was not an attack on “our existence” or “everything for which it [America] stands (NSS). The national discourse on the War on Terrorism serves to conceal power dynamics by articulating national and international subjects into categories of identification that further the interests of national elites to preserve “American global preeminence forever.”
TABLES TABLE 1
|
| |
| |
|
|
United States, a document released near the one-year anniversary of 9-11, states “new deadly
challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats
rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the
nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers
hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use
weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and
dangerous”. The document goes on to state that the United States will use force to “preemp
emerging threats”, and “will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-
defense”. Global preeminence means being able to use military force at any time and any place
against those who are believed to pose a current or even future threat.
The doctrine of preemptive strikes was discussed in an earlier speech on June 1, 2002.
Interestingly, there was very little political commentary on it by media elites. For their was
general consensus that it was a “necessary response (WSJ oped, 6-13-02). A June 10, 2002
editorial from the conservative Wall Street Journal, praised the first strike policy as, “the way to
endure real homeland security”. An editorial from the liberal New York Times was characteristic
of its overall response to the War on Terrorism—supporting its basic necessity and having
merely friendly advice for Bush on how it is implemented. While the WSJ criticisms were more
generally along the lines of the WOT does not go far enough. The NYT editorial cautioned that
the policy not go too far and be used “carte blanche”, but stated, “
it makes sense to strike first”
against terrorists.
We are told by U.S. political and media elites that the 9-11 attacks were an irrational
attack on “American” values, the values of global civilization. The national story of 9-11
is told as a moral tale, a quintessential struggle of good vs. evil, that will be won by the
nation of good, “America”, which will purge the “dark threat” of terrorism “from our
country and from the world (Bush, 6-01-02)” by ‘shining its light in the darkness’(Bush,
9-11-02). The national discourse of the War on Terrorism continues a historical national
narrative of manifest destiny. This is an old doctrine that portrays the U.S. as a nation
chosen by history and God to extend its blessings of freedom upon the rest of the world,
by force if necessary. Thus doing so, it would be fulfilling its burden as a morally
superior nation to help others that were inferior and to let its light shine around the globe.
However, Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback, stresses that, “contrary to what people in
Washington and the media are saying, that this was not an attack on the United States: this was
an attack on American foreign policy (Shaw 2001).” It was not an attack on “our existence” or
“everything for which it [America] stands (NSS). The national discourse on the War on
Terrorism serves to conceal power dynamics by articulating national and international subjects
into categories of identification that further the interests of national elites to preserve “American
global preeminence forever.”
TABLES
TABLE 1
|
|
 Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
