War of the Words Thesis on the Representation of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
War of the Words Thesis on the representation of the Islamic State by the Obama administration Frank Kleef University of Amsterdam Supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. R.V.A. (Ruud) Janssens Student no.: 10547045 20-06-2017 Abstract The Obama administration used a strategy that actively sought to delegitimize the enemy in order to pursue its efforts to counter the Islamic State and portrayed it as a manifestation of evil. In this thesis I intend to argue that by representing the effort to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State as a conflict between freedom and evil, the Obama administration utilized a very idealistic rhetorical framework. Problematically, the approach taken by the Obama administration to counter the Islamic State really had more to do with the United States itself than the Islamic State, the alleged object of the conflict. Although Obama was frequently lauded for deviating from the rhetorical idealism of the Bush administration, analysis shows that the rhetoric of the Obama administration only changed in style rather than in substance. This thesis aims to contribute to the current academic discourse considering the general reflection on the Obama administration. More specifically, about its Middle East policy and its comprehensive effort to counter the Islamic State. Consequently, it remarks on the problematic approach with which the Obama administration sought to react to the situation in the Middle East and the Islamic State. By doing so, I intend to contribute to the understanding of the Western discourse in order to improve its reaction to out-group crises. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1: 8 1.1: Conceptualizing the Islamic State 9 1.2: The Islamic State, the terrorist group 11 1.3: “A violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam” 14 1.4: Defense by offense 17 1.5: The enemy as the quintessential other 18 Conclusion 21 Chapter 2: 23 2.1: The post-Bush War on Terror 24 2.2: The global war on the Islamic State 30 2.3: War to construct 35 Conclusion 39 Chapter 3: 42 3.1: Twinkle, twinkle Northern Star 44 3.2: The global battlefield 50 3.3: Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing 52 Conclusion 54 Conclusion 57 Bibliography 61 Introduction Addressing the leaders of a multitude of predominantly Muslim countries in Saudi Arabia on 21 May 2017, President Donald J. Trump argued that the global struggle against terrorism is “a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it. This is a battle between Good and Evil.”1 In this speech, Trump seemed to echo the rhetorical style adopted by George W. Bush, who frequently likened those committing terrorist actions to evil during his presidency. President Barack H. Obama aimed to deviate from such rhetoric and instead tried to play down the threat. After the Islamic State captured the city of Fallujah in January 2014, he likened the Islamic State, primary object of the American campaign during his second term to counter terrorism, a “Junior Varsity Team.”2 Obama claimed this at a very early stage in the insurgency of the Islamic State. Over the course of his presidency and as the Islamic State grew rapidly, Obama rarely deviated from this rhetoric of downplaying the threat. Yet, only three days after 128 came to perish in the terrorist attacks on the evening of November 13th, 2015, he stated that “ISIL is the face of evil” at the G20 Summit in Turkey. 3 Obama seldom issued such obviously idealism-infused statements, which would credit the struggle against the Islamic State with epic importance and a recruitment tool for the Islamic State. Generally, the discourse his administration seems to have used was more subtle than the statements. Obama frequently stated that he intended to abandon the idealism-infused approach to the Global War on Terror, predominantly present in the rhetoric of his predecessor, during 1 The White House. “President Trump’s Speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit.” Whitehouse.gov. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/21/president-trumps-speech-arab-islamic-american- summit (Accessed on 05-06-2017). 2 Remnick, D., ‘Going the Distance: On and off the road with Barack Obama’, The New Yorker (27 January 2014) (05-06-2017). 3 Garunay, M., ‘President Obama at the G-20 Summit: We Are United Against This Threat.’ Obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/16/president-obama-g-20- summit-we-are-united-against-threat (Accessed on 05-06-2017). 1 the campaign for the presidential elections of 2008 and early in his first term as President of the United States. Analysts like Ryan Lizza, at The New Yorker, argued in his article “The Consequentialist” that Obama was a not an idealist nor a realist, but a consequentialist, reacting to developments at hand.4 This theory might have been accurate at the time the article was published in 2012, just at the end of Obama’s first term. However, during the second term of the Obama administration, in which the Islamic State rose to prominence, a more idealistic rhetoric regarding the issue of fighting the Islamic State seemed to dominate its discourse. The scholarly debate surrounding the discourse of the Obama administration is quite divergent in opinions. Most of the sources I consulted seemed tainted with personal political preferences, choices, and agendas. Yet, all scholars agree that the general concept of the policy established by the Obama administration regarding the Middle East and the struggle against the Islamic State is flawed and seemed to be failing. Disagreement seems to rule on how exactly the performance of the Obama administration in its efforts to counter the Islamic State could have been more effective. The argument from Asaf Siniver and Scott Lucas is very illuminating in this debate, who suggested in their article ‘The Islamic State lexical battleground’ that the wording of the policies of the Obama administration signifies that it was basically evading commitment to the conflict. Alternatively, Andreas Krieg rather argues in his article ‘Externalizing the burden of war’ that the multilateral approach taken by the Obama administration actually signals a readjustment to a changing global order. Externalizing the burden of engagement then is viewed as the switch from a leading nation to a supporting role for the United States and reliance on the powers of the Middle East. Instead, Jülide Karacok argues in her article ‘The Failure of Indirect Orientalism’ that the Islamic State itself is evidence for the failure of the indirect Orientalism she observes in the Middle East policy of the Obama 4 Lizza, Ryan, ‘The Consequentialist’, The New Yorker (May 2011). 2 administrations. Although these are only a few of the sources I consulted for this thesis, all have significant presence in the theory I produced. Ultimately, with this essay I aim to test the approach taken by the Obama administration against the Edward Said’s theory about relations between the countries of the West and the East. In his groundbreaking work Orientalism (1978), Said argued that Western actors have defined the East as inferior and subservient to the West. He continued that the Western conceptualization of the East is based on Western values and concepts, suggesting that the dominant Western image of the East is a Western construct, rather than reality.5 By distancing the people of the East from the West by a “semi-mythical construct,” Said argues that the in- group version of the out-group rhetorically becomes the in-group’s object “to possess and direct.”6 The rhetoric of the Obama administration regarding the Middle East and the Islamic State seems to incorporate such a possessive character. An illuminating example is the governmental issue on strategic guidance, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” in which the over-arching goal seems to be promoting an international order based on the rule of law.7 Constituent to this established national interest is the belief that the rights inherent to such a legal construction are universal rights. However, these values are actually Western products. Promoting an international order based on the rule of law, would thus technically mean imposing Western in-group values on its out-group. Another important aspect to this theory is the way the Obama administration sought to antagonize and delegitimize the Islamic State. In line with framing the Islamic State to be the “face of evil,” Obama called its ideology “A violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam,” thereby assuming the moral high ground.8 By assuming the moral high ground, Obama inverted the logic of John 5 Said, Edward, Orientalism (1978), xviii. 6 Said, Orientalism, xviii. 7 Department of Defense. ‘Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense’, Defense Strategic Guidance (January 2015). 8 Garunay, ‘President Obama at the G-20 Summit’, (Accessed on 05-06-2017). 3 Winthrop, framing the United States as a “city upon a hill,” implying that its illogical to condone the behavior of the Islamic State, thereby suggesting that what the American government condones is inherently logical and opposed to the evil that is the Islamic State: good. The unifying question is how the discourse of the Obama administration limited its capability to develop an adequate policy for countering the Islamic State. Therefore, this thesis will primarily focus on analyzing the rhetoric of the Obama administration regarding its comprehensive effort to counter the Islamic State. Despite the fact that developments surrounding American engagement in the struggle against the Islamic State mainly happened during his second term, I will extend the timeframe to the campaign of Obama for the presidential elections of 2008, in which he was portrayed as an opponent of the wars waged by the Bush administration.