Bush's Manipulation of the Word 'Terrorism'

On September 11th, 2001, the terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda infiltrated American airports across the country, crashed two planes into the Twin Towers, one plane into the Pentagon, and planned on crashing a fourth plane into the White House, but failed to do so. This fourth plane was overrun by civilians and crashed in Pennsylvania instead. A little less than 3,000 Americans were killed in this act of terror. On September 16th, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a ‘war on terror’. Two years later, using the language of the so called ‘war on terror,’ the United States government, under the prerogative of Bush, invaded Iraq. Relatively recent unveilings regarding potentially false pretenses leading to the invasion, calls into question the validity of the war. In all actuality, Bush used the threat of ‘terrorism’ to justify his own political agenda: the usurpation of Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein.

            Bush claimed that he had intelligence that proved that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda. However, no one ever found any evidence suggesting that Iraq ever had any weapons of mass destruction, and it looks as though the Bush administration exaggerated on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda for their own purposes. In fact, in his book Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS, Joby Warrick finds, through interviews with ex-CIA operatives, that Vice President Dick Cheney was aware that a high level terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was hiding out in Iraq. However, the Bush Administration refused to infiltrate his base because it would remove any legitimacy in their plans to invade Iraq in the next month. By the time the U.S. declared an invasion al-Zarqawi was gone. The fact that the Bush Administration was unwilling to take out al-Zarqawi when they had the chance because it would harm their political agenda, proves that defeating terrorism was not their main goal.

            In her article, “Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented ‘Terrorism’,” Lisa Stampnitzky argues that terrorism is not a finite idea, but rather a constructed concept. Stampnitzky finds that the current definition of terrorism did not even exist until 1970s, and that the word terrorism is simply a political tool used by politicians to insight specific actions. In the United States, the use of the word terror is very poignant. When citizens of the U.S. hear the word ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist’ their immediate reaction is fear, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent ‘terrorism’ and protect themselves. Just think of the rights that American citizens were willing to give up after 9/11. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to think that President Bush would use the fear insighted by the word ‘terrorism’ for his own political gain. It appears as though President Bush was interested in getting rid of Saddam Hussein long before the attack on 9/11 occurred. The events that took place on 9/11 allowed him to use the threat of terrorism to invade Iraq even though Iraq did not really possess a terrorist threat.

            Military personnel are still deployed in Iraq today, 15 years after troops were first activated, billions of dollars have been spent on Iraq, while the citizens of Iraq no longer have a functioning government and are in the middle of a political vacuum. Given the disastrous consequences of the invasion of Iraq, the American people should be wary of the use of the word ‘terrorism’. The example of the war on Iraq shows just how dangerous the use of the word 'terrorism' can be. People need to be aware of this danger. The word 'terrorism' should not be used lightly, it has immense political repercussions, which should be considered. If the use of the word 'terrorism' could spur the United States to enter a war which it is still waging 15 years later, what else could the use of the word 'terrorism' lead to?