In previous posts the author addressed the concept of the counterterrorism. Examples include diplomacy and counterterrorism, trends and counterterrorism, leadership and counterterrorism, and contemporary counterterrorism.
In this post, the author explores something more significant—American Presidents and their use of the language of counterterrorism. Specifically, this essay examines the fascination associated with how counterterrorism language is employed by leaders of the United States in their efforts to confront Al Qaeda, The Islamic State, and other likeminded transnational terrorist organizations.
Background
The misuse of counterterrorism language can embolden a terrorist organization or a terrorist. An implicit illustration of the failure counterterrorism language is provided in “The Language of Counterterrorism: When Message Received is Not Message Intended.”[1] The authors’ of the article assert, “Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks frequently manipulate Western leaders’ words and use them as tools to rally others to the cause of extremism. While policymakers cannot control how people will perceive what they say, they have tremendous power over what they say.”[2]
The author’s then provide this extraordinary statement: “The British Government (Her Majesty’s Government, or HMG) recognizes the critical role of language as part of its larger arsenal in its counterterrorism operations. HMG understands that its language can be used against it, to radicalize people—particularly vulnerable members of marginalized communities at home and abroad—to commit acts of violence.”[3]
In a summary of the significance of language and counterterrorism they provided this statement: “Small changes in Western political language can deny terrorists’ power to use our words against us.”[4] Additionally, they noted, in the battle for hearts and minds, counterterrorism language is significant. To this they conclude, “The way we talk about terrorism can enhance intellectual debate among elected leaders, news media, and citizens rather than [emboldening] radical forces.”[5]
The above provides a sense of the synergy between counterterrorism, language, and the war on terrorism. The language of counterterrorism can certainly be aggressive and designed intimidate terrorist groups and their supporters. The military is often the purveyor of this type of verbiage.
The struggle against radical Islam will be a long and arduous campaign for the United States and its coalition allies. Noted scholar Ariel Cohen offers this statement to supplemental point: “For the first time since the Cold War, the United States finds itself in an intense struggle for hearts and minds. This time, the U.S. government is competing against radical fundamentalists for the support of the Arab and Muslim world. This is a struggle against those who seek to destroy the United States and its allies and its core values. The battle is not a short-term campaign, but one that will be protracted without a clear end.”[6]
U.S. Presidents And The Language of Counterterrorism
Since the start of the war on terrorism American President’s have been schooled on the language of counterterrorism. That is Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have each had extensive meetings with senior foreign policy officials to ensure that they understood the nuances of counterterrorism communication.
President George W. Bush And The Language of Counterterrorism
American presidents have adopted an uneven language in dealing with the ever-expanding transnational landscape. President George W. Bush provided a wealth of phrases and statements that provided a clear window into his administration’s approach to language and counterterrorism.
President Bush used this statement to define the struggle against transnational terrorism: “The attack took place on American soil but it was an attack on the heart and soul of the civilized world. And the world has come together to fight a new and different war—the first, and we hope, the only one of the 21st century. A war against all those who seek to export terror and a war against those governments that support or shelter them.”[7]
Bush issued this significant statement as well: “This is a time of testing—this time of testing has revealed the true character of the American people. We’re angry at the evil that was done to us, yet patient and just in our response.”[8]
Additionally, President Bush unleashed this phrase that defined his broad counterterrorism strategy: “We are dismantling their military, disrupting their communications, severing their ability to defend themselves, and slowly but surely we’re smoking Al Qaeda out of their caves so we can bring them to justice.”[9]
As noted previously in another post, President Bush created the counterterrorism infrastructure that would govern his and subsequent administration responses to the war on terrorism. Equally important, President Bush provided the standard on use of counterterrorism language upon which Obama and Trump would employ and adapt.
President Barack Obama and the Language of Counterterrorism
President Obama endeavored to fight a different struggle against terrorism. Indeed, President Obama promised to tone down the rhetoric used by his predecessor. Similarly, Obama promised to institute a counterterrorism strategy that was “more morally acceptable.”[10] Within the opening months of his administration President Obama used the phrase “overseas contingency operations” as a replacement for war on terrorism. This change represented the first of several changes in tone and language instituted by the Obama administration.
His use of drones to conduct his counterterrorism campaign, along with the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, indicated that Obama was prepared to conduct a dissimilar struggle against transnational terrorism.
President Obama’s second term provide a window into a changing reality. That is, there was a dramatic shift in the tone and tenor of his counterterrorism language that was reminiscent of the verbiage employed under the Bush presidency.
Most startling is President Obama’s repeated use of the words “on the path to defeat” and “decimated” in connection with Al Qaeda. Obama’s expanded Drone campaign in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia which resulted in the death of “high value” targets in these organizations contributed significantly in the change in the president’s rhetoric.
Based on the high number of leadership deaths unleashed by the drone strikes, and also as a result of the increase in Special Operation raids, sensing the decline within Al Qaeda, President Obama believed, incorrectly, that Osama bin Laden’s death and that of numerous mid-level and senior members of the organizations leadership, he made the decision to return to language more reminiscent of his predecessor, President Bush.
As an illustration of the shift in tone, during a campaign event in Las Vegas on September 12, 2012, one day after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama made this statement: “A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”[11]
In a subsequent example, during an address at the University of Miami on September 20, 2012, President Obama confidently acknowledged, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other … places—increasingly in places like Syria—what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had.”[12]
At the close of his presidency, Obama’s dramatic shift in counterterrorism language unleashed a torrent of criticism. For example, with the rise of the Islamic State and the increase in lone wolf attacks both inside the United States and in Europe, President Obama’s counterterrorism language changed again. According to critics the change did not keep pace with the threat.
In an illustration of the point, Stuart Gottlieb, a scholar in International Relations, asserted, “His tendency, and we saw it at G-20, is typical of the administration, to want to keep very calm language, and keep it toned down and not use rhetoric that they believe is inflammatory, such as “warfare” and ‘civilizational war.’
On the other hand, using the term like ‘setback’ for the Paris attacks was particularly, I think, understated and received some criticism not just here in the United States but also in Europe and in France in particular… It was not of what he should have said; it said something about the strategy, because he believes the strategy fighting ISIS right now is pretty much a containment strategy, and if you can contain them in the Mideast you can slowly degrade and then destroy them.”[13]
President Donald Trump and the Language of Counterterrorism
President Donald Trump issued statements that many counterterrorism professionals believed undermined “established language norms.” In a notable example, then candidate Trump, during a rally in Iowa in 2016, stated he would “bomb the s— out” of the Islamic State.
During his presidency, however, Trump has used language more consistent with established counterterrorism verbiage. President Trump, like his predecessors, recognizes that ultimately the war on terrorism is a struggle for the hearts of minds. Thus, in spite of language that may run counter to tradition, President Trump has used language more in line with established norms and simultaneously illustrated that a toned down version of the old language reared its ugly head.
The president’s address following the Special Operations raid that resulted in the death of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi provides details of both the proper and problematic use of counterterrorism language.
In the words of Daniel Byman, noted senior fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, argued, “Americans should truly rejoice after President Trump announced, “Last night, the United States brought the world’s No. 1 terrorist leader to justice.”[14]
The problem with the address is that President Trump infused the positive speech with problematic counterterrorism language. In the words of Byman: “The eventual tone of Trump’s remarks, however, diminished the solemnity of the moment. This could have been a signature moment for the president, giving him a chance to offer a powerful message of purpose and unity. Instead, Trump gloated that al-Baghdadi “died like a dog. He died like a coward” and that he “spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him.”[15]
During the State of Union Address on February 4, 2020, President Trump returned to established counterterrorism language. Speaking about the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Quds Forces, what the U.S. has branded as a terrorist organization, the president stated: “At my direction, the U.S. military executed a flawless precision strike that killed Soleimani and terminated his evil reign of terror forever. Our message to the terrorists is clear: You will never escape American justice. If you attack our citizens, you forfeit your life.”[16]
Analysis
American presidential counterterrorism language serves multiple purposes. American presidents employ counterterrorism communication to assist in the implementation of U.S. strategies. Second, American presidents have employed the language to assist in the direction or status of the war on terrorism. Third, the language assists in unifying the country, most significantly after September 11, 2001. Fourth, American presidents usage of this language to communicate with terrorists, most specifically, that their actions and or threats will not succeed in defeating the United States.
On the latter point, according to Christopher Paul and Elizabeth L. Petrun Sayers, provided this significant statement: “Counterterrorism communication aimed at individuals in these intermediate stages could, for example, work to diminish the credibility of terrorist group leaders, document manipulative strategies used by groups in recruiting, and discredit violent action as an effective means of instituting change.”[17]
American presidential counterterrorism communication remains a work in progress. Often eclipsed is that there are other levels where members of the foreign policy brain trust (the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of the Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, the National Security, at others) each provide important statements that correct or balance statements made by the commander-in-chief.
In the final analysis, American hopes of winning the war on terrorism greatly depends on measured counterterrorism communication. There is something else. The language of counterterrorism may be aimed at defeating terrorist organizations, but one should be mindful the future of U.S. created coalitions, regional support (e.g. the African Union (AU) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and an impactful role performed by the United Nations, requires the American president recognize “words do matter.” The future trajectory of “the long war” is at stake.
[1] Jim Armstrong, Candace J. Chin, and, Uri Leventer, “The Language of Counterterrorism: When Message Received is Not Message Intended,” Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, April 2008. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/language-counter-terrorism-when-message-received-not-message-intended.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ariel Cohen, “War of Ideas: Combating Militant Islamist Ideology,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring 2004, p. 113.
[7] “The Global War on Terrorism: The First 100 Days.” http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/6947.htm.
[8] Ibid.
[9] A Nation Challenged; Excerpts From the President’s Remarks on the War on Terrorism,” New York Times, October 12, 2001. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/us/nation-challenged-excerpts-president-s-remarks-war-terrorism.html.
[10] Trevor McCrisken, “Ten Years On: Obama’s War on Terrorism in Rhetoric and Practice,” Royal Institute of International Affairs, July 2011, p. 781.
[11] Fred Lucas, “Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack,” CNSNews, November 12, 2012. https://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Stuart Gottlieb, “The Language of Counterterrorism: Is Obama Striking The Right Tone?” November 20, 2015. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/11/20/counterterrorism-language.
[14] Daniel Byman, “Al-Baghdadi’s Death … and That Presidential Speech,” Lawfare Blog, October 27, 2019. https://www.lawfareblog.com/baghdadis-death-and-presidential-speech.
[15] Ibid.
[16] “Text of President Trump’s 2020 State of the Union Address,” Washington Post, February 4, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/text-of-president-trumps-2020-state-of-the-union-address/2020/02/04/627baebc-47c9-11ea-91ab-ce439aa5c7c1_story.html.
[17] Christopher Paul and Elizabeth L. Petrun Sayers, “Assessing Against and Moving Past The “Funnel” Model of Counterterrorism Communication,” NATO Stratecom Center For Excellence, Defense Strategic Communications (2016), pages 26-40. https://www.stratcom.org/christopher-paul-and-elizabeth-lpetrun-sayers-assessing-against-and-movin-past-funnel-model.
