Dominance through Coercion: Strategic Rhetorical Balancing and the Tactics of Justification in Afghanistan and Libya

Abstract

This article analyses British and American justifications for military intervention in the decade following 9/11. Taking Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011 as the main case studies, the article explores the ways in which political elites attempt to achieve policy dominance through rhetorical coercion, whereby potential opponents are left unable to formulate a socially sustainable rebuttal. Specifically, in these case studies, the article explores the use of strategic rhetorical balancing, whereby secondary rationales for intervention are emphasized as part of a tactic of justification designed to secure doubters' acquiescence by narrowing the discursive space in which an alternative counter-narrative could be successfully and sustainably formulated.

Keywords:

• intervention
• rhetoric
• language
• Afghanistan
• Libya

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the journal editors, two anonymous referees and participants at the 2012 BISA-ISA conference for their feedback.

Notes on Contributors

Jack Holland is Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Surrey. He researches US, UK and Australian foreign, security and counter-terrorism policy. He is the author of Selling the War on Terror (Routledge 2013), co-author of Security: A Critical Introduction (Palgrave 2014) and co-editor of Obama's Foreign Policy (Routledge 2013). He has recently published in journals such as European Journal of International Relations and International Political Sociology.

Professor Sir Mike Aaronson is the Executive Director of cii – The Centre for International Intervention at the University of Surrey. His background is in diplomacy and international relief and development; he served for 16 years in the UK Foreign Service and from 1995–2005 was Chief Executive of Save the Children UK. cii exists to research the motivations and consequences of international intervention; Mike's special interests are in humanitarianism, the interplay between the ethical, legal, and political dimensions of intervention, and the impact of new technologies on foreign policy. Recent publications include co-editing “Hitting the Target?”, which considered the issues raised by the use of ‘drones’, and contributions to collections on the history of aid and humanitarian intervention in Africa and US foreign policy under Obama.

Notes

1 We use the term ‘strategic rhetorical balancing’ as entirely distinct from theories pertaining to a balance of power.

2 It would be possible to argue that the War on Terror was perhaps an extreme example of the suffocating and oppressive dominance of official discourse, were it not for the similar experience of the Cold War. The publication of lists of dangerous academics during the War on Terror, for example, can be seen as a ghostly echo of McCarthyism (e.g. Horowitz 2006). These academics were supposedly threatening the United States through their opposition to government policy.

3 Blair would later come to repeat these arguments in post hoc justifications for intervention in Iraq, reminding those who opposed his decision that, had they got their wish, they would live in a world where Saddam Hussein continued his reign of terror over millions of Iraqis.

4 Requiring NATO members to come to the support of any member who is attacked by an external adversary.