Slogans have been critical during the ever-expanding war on terrorism. Slogans for example provide a sense of direction that indicate how American presidential administrations are confronting the threat of transnational terrorism. Slogans are also useful in galvanizing public support for the battle ahead. In an interesting observation, Jonathan Matusitz argues “slogans reflect the personality of the president.”[1] Since the administration of President Ronald Reagan, leaders in the United States have been heavily dependent on slogans as a vital part of the shaping counterterrorism strategies in disparate confrontations with terrorist organizations. This post is dedicated to informing the reader about some of the slogans and the impact they have had on the conduct of the war on terrorism.
Ronald Reagan’s Slogan And The War On Terrorism
During the 1980 Presidential election, candidate Ronald Reagan incessantly used the phrase “swift and effective retribution” which ultimately developed into the principle slogan of the administration. As to why he elected to use the choice words as a warning to terrorists, during a presidential conference on January 29, 1981, President Reagan provided this response: “This is a big and … powerful nation. It has a lot of options open to it, and to try and specify now just particularly what you should do I think is one of the things that’s been wrong. People have gone to bed in some of these countries that have done these things to us in the past confident that they can go to sleep, wake up in the morning, and the United States wouldn’t have taken any action. What I meant by that phrase was that anyone who does these things, violates our rights in the future, is not going to be able to go to bed with that confidence.”[2]
Over the course of what one author dubbed The First War on Terrorism,[3] Reagan’s slogan was used as a justification for counterterrorism strikes against Iran and Libya. The slogan was also useful in focusing attention against terrorist groups that were loyal to Iran such as Amal which operated in Lebanon.
Bill Clinton’s Slogan And The War On Terrorism
In the wake of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, President Bill Clinton made international terrorism an issue of consequence not for the CIA or State Department but under the purview of the FBI. Critics argued the decision indicated the threat of terrorism was not a priority for the administration. It is for this reason it can be argued that President Clinton did not have a formal slogan to deal with Al Qaeda which had already announced itself on the world stage.
In the wake of attacks on the US Embassies in East Africa in August of 1998, President Clinton made a pivotal decision: the threat of terrorism was now under the purview of the CIA. Despite this critical decision the administration still lacked a formal slogan.
Instead, inside the Beltway, politicians, counterterrorism professionals, and the media were left with a series of speeches by President Clinton and other administration officials to discern the response to the ever-expanding Al Qaeda threat.
For example, in his response to the August 1998 attacks on US embassies in East Africa, President Clinton asserted “this is not just America’s fight: it’s a universal one.” [4] No slogan developed however because Clinton lacked credibility and he failed to marshal public opinion in support of war against Al Qaeda. That is, after the World Trade Center bombing or the attack on USS Cole, President Clinton did not launch an attack or order sustained counterterrorism operations against the perpetrator, Al Qaeda.
Though Clinton did increase his rhetoric against Al Qaeda, no defined slogan emerged. Worse, critics charged the Clinton administration lacked a coherent counterterrorism message. Put another way, though Clinton signed many “presidential findings” against Al Qaeda, the absence of a coherent counterterrorism strategy and a commitment to conduct a war against Osama bin Laden’s transnational enterprise permitted the threat to metastasize eventually culminating in the September 2001 attack.
At another level, this would explain why Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s statement which called for closing “ranks to deter, detect, and punish”[5] violent extremist groups did not garner significant domestic or international attention.
George W. Bush’s Multiple Slogans And The War On Terrorism
In the most significant speech in the wake of the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001, in an address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush clarified the enemy and his administrations initial response to the threat. Bush stated, “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”[6]
Within the confines of this address, President Bush outlined what would become the administrations four-pronged counterterrorism strategy which consisted of global diplomatic cooperation, cooperation in the areas of law enforcement among the US and their allies, the unleashing of the CIA, and the expansive use of the Pentagon.
In a subsequent address in Poland on November 6, 2001, President Bush charged, “As I’ve said from the start, this is a difficult struggle, of uncertain duration. We hunt an enemy that hides in shadows and caves. We are at the beginning of our efforts in Afghanistan. And Afghanistan is the beginning of our efforts in the world. No group or nation should mistake America’s intentions: We will not rest until every terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated. And this goal will not be achieved until all the world’s nations stop harboring and supporting such terrorists within their borders.”[7] The speech contained this important statement, “I will put every nation on notice that these duties involve more than sympathy or words. No nation can be neutral in this conflict, because no civilized nation can be secure in a world threatened by terror.”[8] This statement unleashed another phrase that critics of the Bush administration argued undermined the US moral authority in the conflict with Al Qaeda, “you are either with us or against us.”
Within the Pentagon, during the opening months of the campaign there were internal debates about the appropriate slogan. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had a different perspective on the appropriate slogan. Secretary Rumsfeld and others within Pentagon spoke of “a global struggle against violent extremism.”[9] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers did not like the use of “war on terrorism” and viewed it as an overreach. Instead, Myers, like Rumsfeld, viewed the conflict as a war against “violent extremism.”[10]
It should also be noted that many administration officials used the extended slogan Global War on Terrorism and its acronym GWOT. However, many commentators accepted a combination of war on terrorism and every terrorist groups of global reach as the preferred slogans of the Bush era.
These slogans were consequential in what was a highly successful campaign against terrorism. However, the Iraq War and the failure to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan undermined Bush’s credibility.
Barack Obama’s Slogan And The War On Terrorism
From the beginning President Obama would be different from his predecessor. Throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign, candidate Obama was determined to shift away what he viewed as a divisive conduct of the war with radical Islamists under the direction of President Bush.
The change would come in three consequential ways: he refused to utter the words “war on terrorism.” President Obama preferred instead to use another phrase, “Overseas Contingency Operations.” This phraseology did not sit well with counterterrorism professionals and among Beltway politicians on both sides of the political divide.
Second, President Obama opted instead for speeches to explain his position and strategy in the war on terrorism. And third, President Obama did not adopt any slogan as a counterterrorism guide to defeat Al Qaeda.[11]
In the second term, President Obama made extensive use of slogans. Those slogans concerned two disparate terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. On Al Qaeda, President Obama used ““decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.”[12] In a speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in November 2013, President Obama declared that “Al Qaeda has been decimated and Osama bin Laden is dead.”[13]
With respect to the Islamic State, two slogans dominated the Obama administration’s counterterrorism pronouncements. The first is the president use of “JV team” as a description of the Islamic State. This slogan was viewed negatively in the press and among counterterrorism professionalism in and outside the administration.
A key set of words that were used during Obama’s September 14, 2014 address formed what came to be viewed as the administrations slogan in Obama’s struggle with the Islamic State. The words were as follows: “the United States … [would] degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.”[14]
Taken collectively, though the Obama administration had several significant victories (Killing Osama bin Laden) and changes in the way the war on terrorism was conducted (expanded use of drones), but ultimately the negatives overshadowed some significant efforts by American and coalition military personnel.
Donald Trump’s Slogan And The War On Terrorism
Throughout the 2016 Presidential Campaign, candidate Trump employed a host of slogans to outline his view on how he would confront the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. A few examples are instructive.
During a campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina on September 6, 2016, Trump informed the audience that once in office, “I am also going to convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction: They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for defeating ISIS.”[15]
In an interview with Greta Van Susteren formally of Fox News on May 27, 2015, Trump argued, “If I run, and If I win, I don’t want the enemy to know what I’m doing. Unfortunately, I’ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory.”[16]
In the initial National Security Strategy document released in December of 2017, the Trump White House codified another slogan as a critical feature of the administration’s counterterrorism narrative. As stated in the National Security Strategy, “Even after the territorial defeat of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, the threat from jihadist terrorists will persist. They have used battlefields as test beds of terror and have exported tools and tactics to their followers.”[17]
The dilemma for the Trump administration is that its slogans are aimed principally at the Islamic State. The administration must develop a slogan that deals with Al Qaeda and their affiliates and other groups such as Hezbollah which remains a major terrorist group that has largely escaped the attention of the US military. The point being is that President Trump and future presidents must develop multiple slogans to address disparate terrorist threats.
Analysis
One of the major flaws associated with American slogans is that they never met the intended purpose which called for the defeat of a terrorist entity or terrorism in general. Thus, successive US presidential administrations are guilty of overreach.
A second dilemma is the absence of continuity. One would be hard pressed to locate two American slogans over the course of the war on terrorism and the subsequent release of the counterterrorism strategy and identity overlap or continuity. This problem of continuity impacted “consistency of effort” and credibility from one administration to the next.
Third, it can be argued that over the course of the war on terrorism US presidents have not necessarily met their stated goals. In a notable example, no one knowledgeable about the conflict believed that President Bush would defeat “all terrorist groups of global reach.” Many commentators felt this slogan raised unnecessary expectations.
Fourth, in a more cynical view, Carol Winkler, author of the study, In the Name of Terrorism: Presidents on Political Violence in the Post-World War II Era,[18] argues that our leaders have mused and perhaps abused slogans in confrontations with terrorists. A fascination point is that our leaders in the development of their slogans or phrases go through a process of “trial and error”[19] before settling on the words that govern the American response to terrorism. The problem is the rhetoric is not always consistent with the Pentagon’s ability to meet the lofty objectives.
Finally, despite the dilemmas associated with presidential slogans, the American military has performed admirably against a host of disparate and dangerous terrorist groups, whether in the form of Al Qaeda and many of its affiliates, the Islamic State, the Taliban, and many other transnational terror groups. A question begs, if the US government maintained a consistent set of slogans would that translate into greater progress against terrorist groups?
[1] Jonathan Matusitz, Terrorism and Communication: A Critical Introduction (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2012), p.199.
[2] The President’s News Conference, President Ronald Reagan. American Presidency Project, January 29, 1981. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44101.
[3] For more information, see David C. Willis, The First War on Terrorism (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
[4] As quoted in John Davis, The Global War on Terrorism: Assessing the American Response, ed. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2004), p. 68.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Text: President Bush Addresses the Nation, Washington Post, September 20, 2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wprv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html.
[7] President Bush: “No Nation Can Be Neutral in This Conflict.” Remarks by the President to the Warsaw Conference on Combatting Terrorism. Office of the Press Secretary, November 6, 2001. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/ releases/2001/11/20011106-2.html.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Eric Schmitt and Tom Shanker, “U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War,” New York Times, July 26, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/us-officials-retool-slogan-for-terror-war.html.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Of note: President Obama did make extensive use of the words “degrade and defeat” significantly over the course of the administration. That said, what may be construed as a slogan by some, it should be noted that it was used in previous administrations.
[12] Fred Lucas, “Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times Since Benghazi Attack,” CNSNews, November 1, 2012, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0.
[13] Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event—Green Bay, Wisconsin. The White House, November 1, 2013. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/01/rem arks-president-campaign-event-green-bay-wi.
[14] Statement by the President on ISIL. The White House, September 10, 2014. https://www.white house.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1.
[15] Ben Schreckinger, “Trump Would Turn to Generals for Islamic State Plan,” Politico, September 6, 2016. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-isil-isis-227807.
[16] Eliza Collins, “Donald Trump’s 3 Secret Plans to Save the World,” USAToday, September 9, 2016. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/09/ donald-trump-secret-plans/90123482/.
[17] National Security Strategy for the United States of America, December 2017. https: //www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf.
[18] See Carol Winkler, In the Name of Terrorism: Presidents on Political Violence in the Post-World War II Era (New York: State University of New York Press, 2006).
[19] Ibid.
