How subjective perspectives in the United States of America and in Afghanistan and Iraq perpetuate the war on terror

Trabajo Escrito , 10 Páginas

Política - Tema: Relaciones internacionales

This essay seeks to analyze these underlying structures, by focusing on the subject in two distinct and exemplary contexts: What structures surround the individual in the United States of America, in contrast to the ones in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan? How do different apparatuses and power structures influence our behavior and perspective in regard to terrorism in general, how could they reproduce the hierarchical international order and perpetuate the war against terror?

How subjective perspectives in the United States of America and in Afghanistan and Iraq perpetuate the war on terror.

Just five days after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration coined a specific term that referred to a number of precise measures against Sunni Islamic fundamentalist groups. The infamous “War on Terror” was born and exercised in Afghanistan and Iraq. The former president stated “they can't stand freedom. They hate what America stands for” (Bazinet, 2001). In contrast to that, in a 2004 video broadcast Osama bin Laden countered “we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation” (BBC News, 2004).

Such statements help establish associations, paint an image in the minds of individuals who find themselves in between affairs that exceed their “selves”. Depending on the framework that surrounds it, the perception of a particular issue might change or is reinforced. The poststructuralist philosopher Michel Foucault calls these enclosing knowledge-structures and mechanisms dispositifs or apparatuses. Within these apparatuses exist several structural elements, that constitute possible relations between them, leaving the subject with a certain spectrum upon which to form its opinion, or more broadly, acquire its knowledge (Foucault & Gordon, 1972-1977, pp. 194-196).

The war against terrorism has been going on for decades, and although many of its actors and terminologies have changed, the core conflict remains.

The aforementioned structures help cement the divide between the two opposing sides, and create a reality in which it is impossible to escape a continuation of the war. Even worse, they might help augment the historical segregation of the West and the rest of the world, with the war against terrorism only reinforcing the hierarchical order.

This essay seeks to analyse these underlying structures, by focusing on the subject in two distinct and exemplary contexts: What structures surround the individual in the United States of America, in contrast to the ones in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan? How do different apparatuses and power structures influence our behaviour and perspective in regard to terrorism in general, how could they reproduce the hierarchical international order and perpetuate the war against terror?

The subject in the context of the United States of America

To understand this perpetuation, a first focal point is on the average citizen in the United States, and how their personal beliefs regarding the concept of terrorism are constituted through the apparatus which surrounds them, which will be illustrated through the corresponding discourses, mechanisms of power, institutions and laws.

The origin of the concept of “terrorism” goes way back and responds to an international necessity to define the specific kind of violence that was exceedingly common in the 1950s. New methods such as guerrilla warfare and suicide bombings proved to be effective ways of combatting oppressors, but they could not be subsumed under the traditional poststructuralist dichotomy of inside and outside the state. While the term “crime” was applicable for violence inside of the state, and “war” for that between states, terrorism concerned both categories (Bonditti, 2017, p. 156). It was a hitherto anomaly right in between, and implied a political connotation directed at states, but was clearly not a conventional war.

This caused a different understanding of this manifestation of violence, which was “no longer perceived, described, expressed, characterized, classified, and known in the same way” (Foucault, 2002, p. 235). The discontinuity that occurred, had caused a new terminology to be used instead; “terrorism” as a concept had emerged, to which the subject was now exposed (Munker & Roesler, 2012, S. 18). This had made it possible for entirely new discourses and discussions about the topic to take place.

The necessity to define the enemy had thus resulted in a new apparatus, which Foucault describes as, “a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions - in short, the said as much as the unsaid” (Foucault & Gordon, 1972-1977, p. 194)

Because of the impalpable nature of the apparatus, this does not mean that a subject, is only exposed to a singular point of view, but rather that there is a realm of possible perceptions - a frame - in which discourse can even take place. For example, in the United States of America, the perceived threat from terrorism is particularly high amongst Republican voters compared to Democrats (Vergani, 2018, pp. 51-52). Research further suggests that human pattern-oriented thinking can have far more wide-ranging implications. Negative perceptions of terrorists among those potentially threatened by them, are often projected onto “out-group identities that are associated with the source of the threat” (Vergani, 2018, p. 36). The subject subconsciously links the “Muslim” terrorist group, to the average Muslim, or even the entire Middle East.

This is amplified even more through rhetoric and imagery: By referring to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as constitutive of the “axis of evil”, President George Bush effectively depicted them as the opposite to the United States and allied Nations, but perhaps on an even larger scale this further reinforced the perspective on these countries as sworn enemies to the US, which helped justifying interventions (Mc Morrow, 2017, p. 58). Nearly two decades later, President Trump refers to Iran as the “single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world” (Mattis, 2017).

This explains how the concept of terrorism could once again be re-contextualised with the concept of war: By making the enemy less abstract, and shifting the perception from dispersed extremists in the desert, to entire ideologically opposed nations, the concept of war suddenly applied again; as in violence between states, leading to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2002, the majority of Americans believed that the United States are well within their right to topple governments so long as they pose a threat to their security (Bowman, 2008, p. 80). Harsh measures when considering that the original purpose of the wars was to destroy terrorism, not infringe upon states' sovereignty.

Even more, this re-contextualisation allowed for the frames of the “discursive and non- discursive” (Foucault & Gordon, 1972-1977, p. 197) apparatus to be readjusted in such a way, that the United States now saw it as their “destiny [...] to bring democracy and prosperity to other nations” (Zizek, 2009). A survey found that 88 percent of Americans approved of the Bush administration's handling of the crisis a month after the attacks (Bowman, 2008). The unifying experience of witnessing the terror of 9/11, had inadvertently created a frame around US-American discourses that made it nearly impossible to oppose military intervention. This is especially evident when comparing the necessity for war as seen by Americans, to the perception of the international community: In the aftermath of the attacks, almost all countries beside the US, saw a more imminent need in the extradition of the terrorists in order for them to stand trial, instead of launching military attacks on countries (Bowman, 2008). Since they had not been exposed to the same experience, nor shared to the same extent the American sentiment of wanting to spread democracy around the globe, the apparatuses surrounding the individuals in other countries allowed for a different perception and assessment of the situation and for different discourses to take place.

Clearly then, the frames surrounding the subject are reliant on power. This power is primarily understood as intersubjective relations not necessarily arranged in a particular way, or as the influence various actors - including the president as well as the ordinary citizen - have on each other in a network of relations that constitute the reality of their apparatus (Foucault & Gordon, 1972-1977, pp. 198-199; Feder, 2011, p. 56).

The average American would not think of using terroristic methods as a viable means to get across their political opinion. But why is this? Setting aside moral implications for a second, it is hard to deny the influence terrorism has had on international security, proving it effective in the sense that it is capable of attracting attention and causing far-reaching reactions. A single individual, the subject, would thus theoretically wield more power, and have more influence on change by employing (highly unethical) methods, than through the use of traditionally democratic means, such as voting in an election, or participating in a protest among many others.

However, there are several aspects the subject takes into consideration: while our personal well­being is certainly our primary interest, and would be heavily compromised if such a method were used, another important factor is the social aspect. The subject adopts a certain behaviour from the institutions around it, which is “[e]verything which functions in a society as a system of constraint and isn't an utterance” (Foucault & Gordon, 1972-1977, p. 198). Institutions are an integral part of the apparatus. In general, the thought of becoming a terrorist hardly crosses people's minds, simply because they would not under any circumstances like to be perceived as one. Another aspect of the apparatus are laws, that condemn anti-human behaviour in general and therefore influence a person's choice of action or restrict them.

This is especially true when laws have hidden meanings: The PATRIOT Act of 2001, which expanded on both domestic and foreign surveillance among other things, was conveniently named such that it could be interpreted as unconstitutional and even more so unpatriotic if one were to oppose it. The “unsaid” implies yet again a frame for what is possible. This concept even applies to the “War on Terrorism” in general which consists equally of field operations and of underlying assumptions, and which political theorist Richard Jackson described as “an entire language or discourse” (Jackson, 2005, p. 8) on its own. As the war against terrorism now involves a great number of countries, including the United States and all of its allies, there is no essential reason as to why the war could not have been named “World War III” instead, but doing so would have drastically changed people's perception of it. Our knowledge regarding a certain issue is reproduced, through discourse as well as official governmental institutions. Systems of education and similar knowledge-producing institutions can even go so far as to induce “manipulation and conditioning” (Foucault & Gordon, 1972-1977, p. 125) through the use of what Foucault calls disciplinary power.

[...]

• Universidad: University of Erfurt
• Autor: Marcel Minor (Autor)
• Páginas: 10
• No. de catálogo: V1284322
• ISBN (PDF): 9783346744784
• Idioma: Inglés
• Etiqueta: united, states, america, afghanistan, iraq