The events of September 11, 2001, marked a turning point in US history, giving rise to a new lexicon and set of policies collectively known as the war on terror. This era, characterized by euphemisms and expanded government powers, has left a lasting impact on US politics and society. Twenty-five years later, the echoes of this period continue to resonate, influencing everything from foreign policy to domestic surveillance.
The war on terror introduced a vocabulary that sanitized violence and erased the humanity of its targets. Terms like enhanced interrogationextraordinary rendition and enemy combatants became part of the political mainstream, facilitating actions that would otherwise be condemned. This language not only justified but also normalized practices that raised serious ethical and legal concerns.
The Evolution of the War on Terror’s Language
Nine days after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, then-US President George W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, declaring the start of the war on terror. This conflict, unlike conventional wars, had no clear geographical boundaries or defined enemy, making it a war without front lines. Bush’s rhetoric, which included phrases like either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists created a narrative that divided the world into notions of good and evil.
The language of the war on terror served a dual purpose: it sanitized US actions and demonized the enemy. This discursive effort helped justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The camp, which held nearly 780 detainees, became a symbol of the post-9/11 suspension of ordinary legal norms. Many detainees were freed without ever being charged with a crime, highlighting the flawed nature of the detention process.
The Institutionalization of the War on Terror
The war on terror led to the expansion of government surveillance and national security powers. The Patriot Act, signed by Bush 45 days after the attacks, vastly expanded the surveillance apparatus of the US government. This legislation made it easier for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to share personal information, transforming the way immigration, borders, and domestic policing were understood.
The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, brought numerous agencies under a single national security structure. This shift in security policy focused on governing possible future threats rather than responding to actual ones. The result was a normalization of surveillance, detention, and state control, particularly targeting Muslim communities. This boomerang effect led to the securitization and surveillance of entire communities, casting suspicion as a justification for state control.
The Legacy of the War on Terror
By the time Barack Obama became US president in 2009, the terminology of the war on terror began to change. However, the institutions built in its wake did not disappear. Guantanamo Bay, for instance, continued to be used for detaining migrants. The war on terror’s legacy also expanded into US foreign policy, with the Trump administration drawing on parts of the post-9/11 lexicon while developing a vocabulary of its own.
The war on terror’s lasting impact can be seen in the continuing power of the same political argument: the need for pre-emptive action to prevent threats from materializing. This logic has played out in recent military actions and the framing of certain regimes as terror regimes. The legacy of the war on terror remains deeply ingrained in US society, shaping policies and perceptions long after the phrase itself has faded from common usage.
