President George W. Bush in his speech on September 20, 2001 to a Joint Session of Congress frames the threat of Al-qaeda as a threat to the ontological security of the United States. In this speech, President Bush references the abstract American values and way of life that Al-qaeda is a threat to. He specifically notes the political freedoms that Americans enjoy and the economic security and prosperity that the U.S. provides as reasons for the September 11 attacks. In framing the attacks as ideological in this way, President Bush is making only response possible: a full-scale political, economic and military retaliation against the very idea of terrorism.
Regardless of the motives
behind Al-qaeda's attacks and the American response, it is clear that the
American response lived up to President Bush’s promise that “every resource”
would be directed in his proclaimed “war on terror.” This war wasn’t just
limited to terrorist organizations, because by framing the attack as an
ideological one against American Values, President Bush also opened the
possibility of targeting governments that harbor or support organizations such
as Al-qaeda. Such was the reasoning in calling out the Taliban in this speech;
by comparing the oppression suffered by Afghans under the Taliban to American
liberties and then noting how the same government harbored Al-qaeda, Bush
expanded the frame of of the threat of Al-qaeda to more than just the organization.
Whether or not framing the attack and the threat posed by
Al-qaeda as an ideological one as opposed to an economic or military one, or
simply an irrational act of terrorism is up for debate. However, by framing the
threat in this way, President Bush expanded the scope of potential American
responses to essentially anything that could gather enough political support.
In the aftermath of such an emotional event, this support was easy to gather.
Therefore, President Bush was able to effectively escalate the conflict to
levels that they likely would not have reached without this framing.
Joey,
ReplyDeleteVery thoughtful post on the effect of the Bush Administration's framing. What options do you think framing it as a military, economic, or criminal threat (many democrats argued at the time that this was a criminal enterprise) would have been possible? What changes exactly were made possible by framing AQ as an ideological/ontological threat?
Professor,
DeleteFraming the 9/11 attacks as as criminal threat would have been just as effective in justifying military operations for retaliation as an ideological framing. This would have focused on the illegality and immorality of the attacks in how they were aimed at civilians that had no direct military ties. This framing would have been more effective than a strict economic or military threat framing by making it more relatable for people. However, Bush's framing as an ideological threat ensured not just an American military response, but also an emotional response from the American public. This ensured that any military operations would also be supported by the American public that felt as if their livelihood was threatened.
Joey,
ReplyDeleteThat was a very well written post. While I completely agree that President Bush's speech escalated conflicts between the United States and other countries, do you believe that there were any other options that he could have or should have taken?
Angella,
ReplyDeletePresident Bush didn't necessarily have to escalate the conflict after the 9/11 attacks by attacking a foreign country (Afghanistan under the Taliban). Retaliation could have just been aimed at Al-qaeda as a military threat, for instance. However, by framing the attacks as an idealogical one, Bush ensured that any government (The Taliban in this case) that harbored the terrorist organization would also be a target because they would approached as if they had the same views towards the American lifestyle/influence/ideology.