Wæver defines securitization as portraying a problem as an existential risk, requiring extreme measures and suspending regular politics. The United States, led by George W. Bush securitized the war on terror by presenting it as a fundamental risk that justified drastic steps such as the invasion of Iraq and the deployment of domestic security measures. The securitization of the War on Terror enabled political players to discredit opponents, control narratives, and win support by citing terrorism's existential danger. This perspective turned the conversation away from political debate and towards a simplistic realm of security concerns. The securitization effort by the United States after 9/11 resulted in higher Homeland Security spending, the establishment of a 'terrorist industry,' and the expansion of an economy based on war, all the while sticking to the narrative of a worldwide war on terror. Ole Wæver's securitization theory can be used to examine how the United States, George Bush, and the western media have securitized the War on Terror.
The media had an important role in distributing the securitization propaganda, shaping public opinion, and contributing to the justification of the conflict across various media channels. This shows how escalating security concerns may affect political decisions, international relations, and public discourse.
Examining how security interacts with identity, habitus, and power dynamics is a key component of using biopolitics and the concepts of the PARIS school to analyse the securitization of the War on Terror. According to Michel Foucault, biopolitics is the study of population governance. The PARIS school, on the other hand, places a strong emphasis on how identity and habitus shape securitization processes and how internal and external security domains are no longer distinct from one another.
Within the framework of the War on Terror, the state and the President securitized this problem by portraying terrorism as an existential threat calling extraordinary actions. The way that terrorism was portrayed in the media increased anxiety and provided basis for the preventive measures, which in turn affected the securitization process. The story of a worldwide security crisis, which was created by the media, was essential in justifying the War on Terror. This may be interpreted from a biopolitical angle as a kind of governance designed to manipulate communities by rationalising extreme protective measures. In the guise of national security, this securitization process eroded civil freedoms, increased surveillance, military incursions, and blurred the boundaries between internal and exterior security.
Hansen Lene's critique of securitization theory focuses on the absence of normative standards in its implementation, which might unintentionally lead to negative securitization practices. A larger feminist approach to security studies includes Hansen's criticism, which aims to discuss security without endorsing negative securitization procedures or reproducing hegemonic subjectivities. We can see how the war on terror was framed as a danger to national security, with the Bush administration applying securitization terminology to justify the use of force and the media mirroring this. USA's securitization of the war on terror was marked by an emphasis on military action and a failure to address the social and political underpinnings of terrorism. The media's involvement in reflecting and sustaining the securitization framing contributed to creating a feeling of urgency and crisis surrounding the war on terror, as well as legitimising the Bush administration's military response.
However, securitization was also challenged, with various political actors and media sources spearheading the resistance. Several media sources criticised the Bush administration's military reaction and advocated for a more sophisticated strategy to combat terrorism. This critique of the securitization framework implies that securitization is not a fixed or unavoidable process, but rather a strategic activity influenced by circumstances and the audience's moral and critical standards.
I would like to pay homage to a forgotten feminist critique of the war on terror performed by rebel comedian, George Carlin. Perhaps he wasn’t aware of frameworks and methods while he was delivering his stand up special. He leaves behind a legacy that is worth sharing and watching. Carlin even highlighted how the state prioritizes national security and diverts resources for it, while neglecting other non traditional securities like health. While talking about Bush's invasion of Iraq, Carlin said, "Can't build a decent car, can't make a TV set or a VCR worth a f***, got no steel industry left, can't get health care to our old people, can't educate our young people but we can bomb the s*** out of your country all right. Especially if your country is full of brown people." "To me, war is a lot of prick waving," Carlin remarked while getting theoretical, "it has to do with the subconscious need to project the phallus into other people's business, and of course the bombs and guns are all shaped like it"
References
O'Reilly, C. (2008). Primetime patriotism: News media and the securitization of Iraq. J. Pol. & L., 1, 66.
van Munster, R. (2012, June 26). Securitization - International Relations. Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved April 14, 2024, from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0091.xml
Markiewicz, T. (2024). The vulnerability of securitisation: the missing link of critical security studies. Contemporary Politics, 30(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2267371
Odolczyk, M. (2020, October 30). Securitising the War On Terror. E-International Relations. Retrieved April 14, 2024, from https://www.e-ir.info/2020/10/30/securitising-the-war-on-terror/
Vultee, F. (2007). Securitization as a theory of media effects: The contest over the framing of political violence. University of Missouri-Columbia.
Langwald, K. (2021). Multidisciplinary Approaches to Security: The Paris School and Ontological Security. E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
Sjöstedt, R. (2007). The Discursive Origins of a Doctrine: Norms, Identity, and Securitization under Harry S. Truman and George W. Bush. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(3), 233–254. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24907233
President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear". (n.d.). George W. Bush White House. Retrieved April 14, 2024, from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Thank you for this unique and insightful take on the war of terror and how America securitized it by portraying terrorism as an existential threat , maybe you could have elaborated more on how securitization of war on terror impacted other military endeavours of the U.S , has there been a reduction in the U.S securitizing certain issues after the backlash it received for engaging in the war of terror or has U.S military policy remained un-affected ? This would be an interesting area to explore .
Thank you for your comprehensive analysis of how the US securitized the War on Terror. I resonate with your view on the media's role in disseminating securitization propaganda and influencing public opinion, as well as the critique of securitization practices by Hansen Lene and the importance of a feminist approach to security studies. Your reference to George Carlin's critique of the war on terror adds a unique perspective, highlighting the societal priorities and the diversion of resources towards military actions over other essential needs like healthcare and education.
Hey, Akash. This analysis carefully breaks down the securitisation of the War on Terror, showing how media narratives, political agendas, and power relations combine to support military interventions while ignoring complex conversations about their underlying causes. George Carlin's insightful criticism highlights the ridiculousness of giving military action precedence over urgent social concerns and echoes broader calls for rethinking security paradigms.
This was a very interesting article. Lene Hansen's critique of securitization theory, along with George Carlin's unconventional perspective, adds depth to the discussion by highlighting the ethical and normative implications of securitization practices. Carlin's comedic insight into the war on terror serves as a reminder of the importance of questioning hegemonic narratives and challenging the status quo.
While reading i couldn't stop myself from thinking of how the great nations and exporters of arms don't actually want the threat and enemies to stop-existing. They do propose and strive for (atleast in the speeches) ending instability in the world and promoting global-wide peace but in reality their multi-trillion dollar arms industry will die in the scenario. so if you could draw a broader picture vis-a-vis the intent behind the leaders to declare an issue a securitisation issue.