7.1.1 America, the Innocent?

An aspect noticeable in Bush’s framing was also used by President Obama: Obama spoke of ‘innocents’ when referring to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. He emphasized that he would be continuing “the effort to prevent bombs going off or planes going into buildings that would kill innocents” (Obama 2009/04/07). He too pointed out that the victims “were just going about their business, going to work” (Obama 2009/04/03, cf. 2009/03/27). This image of ordinary everyday life enhanced the impression of innocence since these were people who had obviously “done nothing to harm anybody” (Obama 2009/06/04). At the same time, the terrorists were identified as those who had sought “to advance their aims by […] slaughtering innocents” (Obama 2009/01/20) or who would “willingly and gladly kill innocents” (Obama 2009/04/20); this further highlighted the contrast between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Similar to Bush’s framing, the victims were treated as private individuals rather than agents of a disputable system or power; the possible reasons behind the attacks were not addressed. In line with this conception of innocence, Obama also stressed that “the United States of America did not choose to fight a war” (Obama 2009/03/27, 2009/04/03) but that America and its allies had been “compelled” to fight it (Obama 2009/12/01). Furthermore, and this was also quite close to Bush’s rhetoric, Obama emphasized that “we did not ask for this fight” (Obama 2009/12/01), and that “we did not go by choice; we went because of necessity” (Obama 2009/06/04). This clearly continued Bush’s framing which pointed to an imposition of duty and underpinned the image of innocence.

In mentioning the casualties of the 9/11 attacks, Obama designated the victims as “innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations” (Obama 2009/06/04). When speaking to international audiences such as during the speeches he gave at Strasbourg town hall, at the Turkish parliament, or the United Nations General Assembly, Obama generally alluded to the “innocent people” (Obama 2009/04/03, cf. 2009/04/07) or the “innocent men, women, and children” (Obama 2009/12/01, cf. 2009/02/09, 2009/04/06, 2009/06/04, 2009/09/23) who fell victim to terrorists wherever they strike. The repeated mentioning of ‘children’ provided an emotional touch, which was similar to Bush’s reference to ‘moms and dads’. Overall, ‘innocence’ was broadly conceptualized and ascribed to all victims of terrorism. Obama did not speak of ‘innocent Americans’, though, as if to avoid the assertion that Americans in general were innocent. He did not use this term with regard to the nation, or when referring to America’s status in the conduct of war. This points to what will be set out below (see sections 7.1.4 and 7.1.5) that Obama did not approve of Bush’s detention and interrogation policies but viewed them as a maculation on America’s innocence.

7.1.2 America: Greatness Must be Earned

As mentioned earlier, nurturing the impression of America as a great nation is common in American presidential history. In this sense, Obama’s rhetoric was not an exception. In a similar manner to Bush, he conjured up the beauty of the American character that allegedly becomes particularly apparent in times of hardship. Speaking in general terms, Obama declared:

Even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity. (Obama 2009/02/24)

The president left no doubt that an inner goodness characterized the American mindset, and that it represented a virtuous strength of the American people. If required, the nation would demonstrate its dedication: “There is nothing […] so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task” (Obama 2009/01/20). In pointing to the burden the fight against terrorism had brought with it, Obama complimented the American people and did so both in general terms as well as with regard to particular groups. He recognized the “great sacrifices” (Obama 2009/03/27) that civilians had made; he praised the intelligence community and the members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force for “working tirelessly” and “courageously”, and he honored them for the sacrifices they were “making on a daily basis” (Obama 2009/10/20, cf. 2009/04/16). He extolled the virtues of the troops who had fought “capably” (Obama 2009/05/06) and “bravely” against a “ruthless enemy” (Obama 2009/03/27) – a juxtaposition that raised the soldiers’ honorable spiritedness und clearly separated the ‘us’ from ‘them’. Having borne this burden, the soldiers and their families were said to “embody the example of selfless sacrifice” (Obama 2009/03/27). Obama declared that the nation would “honor them” for their “spirit of service” and their “willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves” (Obama 2009/01/20). In this depiction, as is particularly common in the United States, sacrifices for the supposed good were constituted as heroism. A fallen soldier was honored as a “fallen hero” (Obama 2009/03/22), and the actions of the passengers, who had caused their airplane to crash before it could hit its alleged target in Washington, D.C., on 9/11, were called “heroic” (Obama 2009/12/01).

Overall, it can be said that Obama reproduced the image of America’s greatness –and this was also done, as mentioned, as part of a parallel discourse of recovery after recession. Nevertheless, in comparison with President Bush, who reiterated American exceptionalism in a direct and hammering manner that was congenial to erase any doubt about its accurateness, Obama was more reserved. In Obama’s speeches, the greatness of the nation was often presented indirectly by stressing values that the people were not living up to. It was obvious that in Obama’s point of view America had failed to fully meet its concept of the exceptional ‘self’. Speaking of his presidential campaign, he remarked, “we know we live in the greatest country on Earth, but, gosh, we also knew that there was this big gap between what was possible and where we were” (Obama 2009/10/15). This attitude of critical distance had also been apparent in Obama’s inaugural address when he reminded the people to strive for the moral high ground:

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. (Obama 2009/01/20)

In his narrative, Obama tied America’s greatness irreversibly to adherence to its values and laws, and he kept reiterating that the country had fallen short of complying with them (see sections 7.1.4 and 7.1.5). However, he also declared that America’s strength was its capacity to address its own faults. He attested that “our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values” (Obama 2009/04/16, cf. 2009/04/21). This issue also formed part of a speech to members of the CIA:

We’ve made some mistakes […]. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States. (Obama 2009/04/20)

Obama called for honesty and common sense in approaching problems, because this embodied “the unique genius of America” that made the United States “different as a nation” (Obama 2009/05/21). Like Bush, Obama used references to history, namely, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to demonstrate America’s greatness. Whereas Obama admitted that America was “perhaps not as innocent as we were when Roosevelt was President” (Obama 2009/12/01), he suggested that the past decades still displayed America’s inimitable position:

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs […]. We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades […]. What we have fought for – what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren. (Obama 2009/12/01)

Again, this statement shows similarities to Bush’s line of argumentation. Although Obama omitted the metaphor of ‘freedom’s defender’, he stressed the American people’s readiness to make sacrifices in order to defend security and American values. He acknowledged that the United States had made mistakes, yet these flaws faded against the background of the task that the nation had successfully tackled. In this sense, Obama drew a time line from the great-grandparents of the American people to their grandchildren, a stylistic device to illustrate that in principle and across generations, the United States had stood for, and continues to stand for, the good.

7.1.3 America, Determined but Disunited

With regard to fighting terrorism, Obama claimed that America was determined and that the country had resolve. Like Bush, he did so in a declarative manner, stating it as a fact on behalf of the people. As has been shown in detail in Chapter 6, Bush spoke of the ‘extraordinary times’ faced by the United States; he declared ‘we didn’t ask for this war’, but expressed his conviction that the American people were ‘determined’ and were the right kind of people to answer the ‘call’ upon America. Obama largely reproduced this rhetoric. In a town hall speech in Missouri he said:

We’re living through extraordinary times. We didn’t ask for all the challenges that we face, but we’re determined to answer the call to meet them. That’s that spirit I see everywhere I go. That’s the spirit we need to sustain, because the answer to our problems will ultimately be found in the character of the American people. (Obama 2009/04/29a)

In a more direct manner, Obama demonstrated America’s determinism by contrasting the United States with the enemy in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’. He directly addressed the adversary and substantiated America’s resolve by using the inclusive ‘we’:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken – you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. (Obama 2009/01/20, cf. 2009/03/27)

This rhetoric was especially powerful as it avoided the third person and bluntly confronted the ‘other’ with the threat of annihilation. On other occasions, Obama emphasized that “we are decisive” (Obama 2009/01/26) and that the United States was “vigorously” (Obama 2009/02/09) going after the terrorists and would “relentlessly confront” (Obama 2009/06/04) them. He underlined that “we will not be deterred” and that America’s resolve was “unwavering” (Obama 2009/12/01). In a declarative manner, he stated that the United States made “a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda” (Obama 2009/05/06) and that this “commitment will not weaken” (Obama 2009/06/04). In linguistic terms, one of his strongest statements was that of “I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda” (Obama 2009/05/21, my emphasis). In this sentence, there is a great accentuation of certainty. While the ‘I-form’ already adds presidential authority to the statement, Obama did not leave it with ‘I know’ or the emphasis of ‘I do know’ but further added ‘I do know with certainty’. It is interesting to note, though, that he combined this with the modal verb ‘can’ which actually lessened the impression of certainty again. In contrast, Bush would have probably stated: ‘I do know with certainty that we will defeat al Qaeda’.

Overall, in comparison to his predecessor, Obama’s declarative rhetoric was less frequent and less ‘thick’ in its presentation. Although the lower frequency of this form of language was certainly related to the change of context and the temporal distance to 9/11, Obama’s wording sometimes lacked unrestrained passion and vigor and this limited the power of its impact. He used fewer sentences that conveyed absolute certainty. Instead, his statements sometimes seemed to embody an appeal. Stating that it was “ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies” (Obama 2009/01/20) appeared to be a sober mention of a prerequisite rather than a rousing proposition. Similar, Obama’s statements were often presented as future goals rather than facts. With regard to the fight against terrorism, he stated that “we have a clear and focused goal” (Obama 2009/03/27, cf. 2009/09/23), an “overarching goal” (Obama 2009/12/01), a “common goal” (Obama 2009/05/06) with other nations, a “core mission” (Obama 2009/10/20) to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda” (Obama 2009/03/27, cf. 2009/04/06, 2009/04/29a, 2009/05/06, 2009/05/21, 2009/06/26a, 2009/09/23, 2009/10/20, 2009/12/01). The repeated alliteration of ‘disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda’ was certainly meant to increase the insistence of the intent to destroy the enemy and its network.133 Nevertheless, it is obvious that the statement ‘we will defeat al Qaeda’ would have had greater force than the announcement that the United States and its allies had the goal of doing so. Overall, Obama’s statements were more apt to communicate the prospect of a political endeavor than the certainty of success. After eight years of counter-terrorism measures, and with no end to the fight against terrorism in sight, Obama formulated his statements more prudently than Bush had done after 9/11.

Although Obama was clear in stating America’s determinism to confront terrorism, he could not claim that his approach was based on national unity. In fact, by the time Obama had taken office, the nation was deeply divided on the ‘War on Terror’, and the ‘we’ – in terms of the American collective – had been shattered. Obama addressed this issue several times. In his inaugural address, he stated that the American people had voted for “unity of purpose over conflict and discord” (Obama 2009/01/20). While this was stated in positive terms, it actually referred to the fact that unity had been lost in important respects. Bush’s detention and interrogation policies and the operations at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay was a focus of this disunity. On the day the OLC Memos were released – memos dealing with the interrogation techniques that had been applied to terrorist suspects during 2002 and 2005 – Obama commented on the “strong views and emotions that these issues evoke” and spoke of a “disturbing disunity” (Obama 2009/04/16). He urged the American people to look forward instead of backward, which included refraining from prosecuting those of the Bush administration who had approved and applied these interrogation techniques (see section 7.5.2). The reasoning behind this position was certainly multilayered; yet, avoiding further national divisions probably played a role in this decision. In Obama’s framing, unity was a constitutive aspect of his attempt to seize the future and enshrine American exceptionalism. Thus, he stressed that “we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future” (Obama 2009/04/16). However, reuniting the American people was difficult because, as Obama noted, “when it comes to actions of the last eight years, passions are high” (Obama 2009/05/21). In another instance, he bewailed that years of debate “have left our unity on national security issues in tatters” (Obama 2009/12/01). He pointed to the difficulty that came with a highly polarized political environment, and continued:

It’s easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Obama 2009/12/01)

Obama took on an even stronger position during this speech. Speaking about the ability of Americans to “come together behind a common purpose”, he stressed that he believed in this skill “with every fiber of my being” (Obama 2009/12/01). This is a strong metaphor and there is no way of increasing its strength; it is total. Obama was encouraging the American people to reconcile their differences by stating that he absolutely believed in the possibility of unity. Moreover, he was arguing that American “values” had the power to unite the American people; these values were said to constitute a “creed that calls us together”, and this creed had already proven its power as it had carried the American people through “the darkest of storms as one nation” (Obama 2009/12/01).

Although Obama constituted the American people as united in honoring the service and sacrifice of U.S. soldiers, the secret services, and counterterrorism task forces (Obama 2009/01/20, 2009/02/24, 2009/03/27, 2009/04/20, 2009/10/20), he also pointed to the discord prevailing on the measures taken during the ‘War on Terror’. In his remarks on national security on May 21, 2009 he stated:

We see that, above all […] how the recent debate has obscured the truth and sends people into opposite and absolutist ends. On the one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and would almost never put national security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “Anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided it is a President with whom they agree. (Obama 2009/05/21)

Obama was very clear in his assessment of this strong divide. The discord was not only uncomfortable and causing administrative problems, but affected the security of the United States. In exposing personal motives for seeking presidency, he stated:

I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America – it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people and as one nation. (Obama 2009/05/21)

Obama pointed to the way in which America’s unity and security were interlinked. According to the president’s framing, America’s unity had been lost and its security hampered because the nation had gone astray (see section 7.3.2). Before these aspects of security are discussed in greater detail, the next section investigates Obama’s representation of an America that had lost its way. This is followed by an analysis of Obama’s framing in terms of how America could restore its ‘self’.

7.1.4 America: We Went off Course

During 2009, there were only a very few instances where Obama emphasized that America’s cause in fighting terrorism was just. If he said so in declarative terms, he rationalized his proposition. One example of this was his speech on March 27, 2009, in which he presented a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The goal of the United States, Obama said, was:

to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. (Obama 2009/03/27)

This claim was more confined than those made by President Bush who had asserted in much broader terms that America’s cause was just (see section 6.1.6). Besides that, some of Obama’s statements once again resembled more of an appeal than a declaration:

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. (Obama 2009/12/01)

The fact that Obama only rarely spoke of America’s ‘just cause’ is surely associated with his views on Bush’s policies. Evidently, and this was particularly the case with detention and interrogation, Obama did not consider America’s cause to be just. In his inaugural address, he had already stressed that “our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please” (Obama 2009/01/20). Consequently, immediately after taking office, he signed the order to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay in order to:

restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism. (CNN 2009/01/22)

Obama did not seek to justify the application of ‘harsh interrogation techniques’; instead, he called this aspect of America’s detention policy a “mistake” (Obama 2009/04/20, 2009/04/21, 2009/04/29b, 2009/05/21) and “a misguided experiment” (Obama 2009/05/21). Even on the international level and in front of Muslim audiences like a student roundtable in Istanbul, Obama showed readiness to criticize the United States and to admit that America “has made mistakes and has its flaws” (Obama 2009/04/07, cf. 2009/01/26, 2009/12/10). This self-criticism was probably a strategic move aimed at reconciling the United States with the international community and rebuilding cooperation. However, Obama was even more critical when addressing the American people. In so doing, he potentially increased his credibility and thus furthered the perception of strong leadership. Speaking of the interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, he admitted:

What I’ve said – and I will repeat – is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture […]. I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that […] whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake. (Obama 2009/04/29b)

In line with this assessment, Obama spoke of a “difficult chapter” (Obama 2009/04/21) and of a “dark and painful chapter in our history” (Obama 2009/04/16). In mentioning the memorandums of interrogation methods, he said:

The OLC memos […] reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs. (Obama 2009/04/21)

This was to say that Bush’s policies had violated America’s constitutive ideals and that this had affected the American ‘self’; in Obama’s framing, torture embodied the opposite of what America stood for. With regard to the techniques used in Guantanamo, he bluntly remarked:

We must leave these methods where they belong – in the past. They are not who we are, and they are not America. (Obama 2009/05/21)

I’ve been very clear that Guantanamo is to be closed, that some of the practices of enhanced interrogation techniques I think ran counter to American values and American traditions. So I’ve put an end to these policies. (Obama 2009/04/15)

Torture violates United States and international law as well as human dignity. Torture is contrary to the founding documents of our country, and the fundamental values of our people. (Obama 2009/06/26b)

Obama cautioned the American people about becoming what they actually stood against: lawless and cruel. Overall, he spoke with great determination on the matter of values. Nevertheless, like Bush, he also sought to strengthen his appraisal by appealing to others as witnesses. He maintained that his view of torture was not only a personal assessment but “the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic” (Obama 2009/04/29b). In addressing the Guantanamo-related policies of the Bush administration, Obama suggested that there would not be “a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative” who considered this approach to be right (Obama 2009/03/22). Whereas Bush had invoked God and ‘the world’ to underpin the justness of his course, Obama sought support from experts and intellectuals. However, he referred to yet another instance to make his argument: He underlined that the decision to end the contested interrogation techniques was shared by the majority of American voters “who nominated candidates for President […] who […] called for a new approach – one that rejected torture” (Obama 2009/05/21). In this case, Obama was referring to his challenger, John McCain, the Republican candidate he had run against in the 2008 presidential campaign. So in order to substantiate his view that the nation had gone astray, Obama pointed to his political opponent. “Although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn’t have a difference” (Obama 2009/01/11). This was a skillful strategy to back his argument by engrossing not only the opinion of experts but also of Republicans to strengthen his position. In fact, Obama spelled out that “the arguments against these techniques did not originate from my administration” (Obama 2009/05/21). Rather, he mentioned prominent Republican politicians and officials “including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community” (Obama 2009/05/21) who seemed to know better than George W. Bush and who opposed permitting torture. Certainly, pointing to political opponents who – despite antithetic positions on many other issues – had agreed to end torture in Guantanamo was an attempt to profoundly strengthen the president’s position and to convince the audience of the correctness of his course. This was also the case with the claim that the ‘majority of Americans’ wanted this new approach.

A notion of great centrality to Obama’s argument was that prohibiting ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ was not a matter of usefulness, but of loyalty towards the ‘self’. He asserted that he was “absolutely convinced” that it was right to end these practices:

not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are. (Obama 2009/04/29b)

Obama’s clearest possible confession of a flaw at the governmental or even national level was uttered in a speech on national security on May 21, 2009, when he accused the Bush administration of having trimmed facts and of having been guided by fear. He commented:

Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford […]. In other words, we went off course. (Obama 2009/05/21)

This statement was clearly aimed at Bush’s detention and interrogation policies. According to Obama, the Bush administration had taken an “ad hoc legal approach” that was “neither effective nor sustainable” in order to fight terrorism. The balance drawn by Obama in this speech was harsh. He made it clear that this policy had caused a “flood of legal challenges” and that his administration had been left to clean up the “mess”. In Obama’s words, Bush’s approach embodied a concept that:

failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass […]. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. (Obama 2009/05/21)

It is interesting to note that Obama did not attempt to strengthen his argument by referring to human rights; instead, he invoked American values and strongly linked his argumentation to ‘our legal traditions’ and ‘our deeply held values’.134 Although American values were understood as universally valid and as embodying human rights, evoking the American myth was certainly the more compelling rhetoric for American audiences.

7.1.5 America: That is Who We Are!

In defining America’s identity, Obama put great emphasis on the role of principles and values. Whereas Bush spoke about ‘freedom’, Obama spoke about the ‘rule of law’. One could say that, rhetorically, Bush defended freedom whereas Obama defended the basis for it. Although Obama’s discourse comprised remarkably less religious or ‘God talk’ than Bush’s, Obama treated the rules, as spelled out in the U.S. constitution, as “sacred principles” (Obama 2009/05/21). He not only assigned highest value to the constitution, but also to a God-given validity: the principles the constitution represented were presented as true and, in their truth, everlasting. Since these values were treated as constitutive of American identity, compliance with them defined whether Americans were being true to themselves and in a position to further America’s strength. Obama had foregrounded the essentiality of laws and ideals during his inaugural address:

Our Founding Fathers […], faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man – a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake. (Obama 2009/01/20)

The similarity to Bush’s wording is clear. However, whereas Bush highlighted the role of freedom, Obama inserted historicity to emphasize the impact of the rule of law. The ultimate worth of American ideals and the rule of law was underpinned by mentioning the ‘Founding Fathers’, who had drafted the founding principles despite being faced with the severest circumstances. These principles were so valuable that the ‘blood of generations’ had been shed to secure them and this implied that the United States had a duty to act in accordance with them (see also Obama 2009/04/03). Hence, although these values and laws could stand for themselves, Obama clarified their importance by supplying further reasons to preserve, honor, and uphold them. He confirmed that these principles continuously demonstrated their immovable validity by noting that ‘these ideals still light the world’, and he added a statement that imparted absolute certainty: the United States will not give up these principles for they are more momentous than political convenience. In line with this conception, when Obama ordered the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, he stated:

This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but an understanding that dates back to our Founding Fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard. (IIP 2009/01/22)

It is interesting to note how Obama committed the American people to his own course: although it was him, the president, who was technically following through with his commitment, it was the whole nation, the ‘us’, that was willing to observe it. This will to adhere to these principles was inextricably linked to American identity. In terms of policy, these ‘core standards of conduct’ meant respecting the ‘other’s’ rights even if the ‘other’ did not respect America’s rights. This stance had to be substantiated in trying times:

What makes America special in my view is […] that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they’re hard. (Obama 2009/04/21)

What makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world, is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy. (Obama 2009/04/29b)

On another occasion, Obama said that the U.S. was willing to uphold its ideals “especially when it’s hard” (Obama 2009/06/01a, my emphasis). This notion is remarkable since it claimed a vital characteristic of the American ‘self’ that – at least at that point in time – was absent. It is clear that in Obama’s view the nation had been misled und thus had failed to uphold its own ideals. Thus, these statements essentially voiced how Obama wanted the American people to be. Clearly, he tried to stir up their willingness for reversion and to revive the ideal self-conception by highlighting that compliance with these values was part of American identity. This rhetoric was aimed at reassuring the nation of what was right and also possible. In this perspective, America’s heritage was a creed and an obligation:

Where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology. (Obama 2009/05/21)

This appeal urged the American people to comply with the rule of law. Obama also prompted the intelligence agencies to adhere to these principles (Obama 2009/04/20, 2009/10/28). He announced reform of the American institutions in order to better deal with the terrorist threat, but he insisted that:

we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. (Obama 2009/05/21)

Speaking to CIA employees who were in charge of protecting the American people but who were also required to follow the rule of law, Obama said:

I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back, or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve. I understand that […]. What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it’s expedient to do so. That’s what makes us different. So, yes, you’ve got a harder job. And so do I. And that’s okay, because that’s why we can take such extraordinary pride in being Americans. (Obama 2009/04/20)

This appraisal matched Obama’s declaration that ‘greatness must be earned’ (see section 7.1.2). Obama further strengthened his message by addressing the CIA’s employees directly and constituting them as ‘special’ because of their alleged willingness to uphold America’s values – in fact, this was a rhetorical strategy designed to oblige them to do so. Moreover, the president put himself on a par with these employees by noting that ‘you’ve got a harder job. And so do I’. He showed sympathy that to be bound by law in the fight against terrorism was arduous if the enemy acted beyond any law. But in Obama’s framing, upholding these principles was exactly what set America apart and constituted the consciousness of a great ‘self’. If this “unshakeable commitment to our ideals” (Obama 2009/04/16) was lost, the consequences would be ruinous. Obama warned the American people that once they abandoned this commitment, they would lose their identity: “When you start sacrificing your values […] you lose yourself” (Obama 2009/04/03, cf. 2009/12/10). Torture, in this framing, undermined the value-based substance and concept of America’s ‘self’. Generally, torture is used to destroy the dignity, identity and normative world of the tortured subject, but in applying it, it also calls into question the “defining characteristic” of the community that does so (Parry 2013: 212f). In this sense, Obama suggested that the very practice of torture could destroy the constitutional identity of the torturer and thus, in the end, the American ‘self’.

In order to underpin this stance, Obama used a historical recourse and referred to World War II. As noted earlier, this is one of the most powerful historical references in American collective memory and serves as a screen with which to illustrate and contrast right from wrong. Obama presented evidence for his argument by pointing to Winston Churchill; and as such, used the “great historical stature” (Riccards 1986: 213), personality and leadership of the former British prime minister as a role model for his own course of action:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day, talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don’t torture – when the entire British – all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country. (Obama 2009/04/29b)

With this story, Obama constructed a claim to truth. He did not state that Churchill ‘believed’ or ‘suspected’ that the abandonment of principles would corrode the people’s character – rather, the British prime minister ‘understood’ that this was the case. Obama used this wording to attest wisdom and insight to Churchill and thus stipulated his action as the ideal. Churchill rejected torture despite the fact that ‘London was being bombed to smithereens’ and ‘the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat’. The conclusion that should be drawn from this analogy was that no matter what the circumstances – and this included the most terrifying situations – it was wrong to torture. If this was the case, then Obama’s own decision to end torture was absolutely right. By employing this form of historicity, Obama did what many U.S. presidents had done before him: he used Churchill as a “legend whose determination was a guide for their conduct” (Riccards 1986: 213; cf. Toye 2008). With the Churchill-analogy, Obama pointed to both the governmental level of decision-making, and the widespread consequences of torture, which he viewed as endangering the character of the nation. Obviously, Obama agreed that “what begins with clean and tidy utilitarian references to the public interest and the greater good” ends in unregulated action and thus undermines both the core principles of the ‘self’ and the legitimacy of the state (Morgan 2000: 192).

Obama’s narrative vehemently foregrounded the point that America’s values distinguished the nation from its enemies more than anything else. It was America’s values that enabled the country to draw “a sharp, moral contrast with our adversaries” (Obama 2009/05/21). Compliance with core principles was thus imperative, since otherwise the nation would dilute the lines between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Consequently, when chasing terrorists, the nation was “going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great” (Obama 2009/01/26). Since this aspect was so vital, Obama continued to emphasize the importance of adhering to these values even in the face of threat:

In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. (Obama 2009/04/03)

Just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. (Obama 2009/06/04)

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws […]. (Obama 2009/04/16)

The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings. (Obama 2009/05/21)

Obama maintained that this was true even during the vigorous fight against terrorists. He asserted that his government would:

make sure that the manner in which we operate currently is consistent with our values and our traditions. (Obama 2009/04/15)

My administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, and that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process. (Obama 2009/02/09)

As brought up above, Obama accentuated America’s greatness in terms of the country’s willingness and ability to admit its mistakes and change its behavior: “When we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes” (Obama 2009/04/21, cf. 2009/04/16) and in so doing, “we […] keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation” (Obama 2009/04/21). There was at least one instance where it seems as if Obama was pulling out all the stops to underscore the importance of his message. In his speech on national security, held at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., he even bound his political future to compliance with core values:

We will vigorously protect our people […] while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for our core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall. (Obama 2009/05/21)

Consequently, Obama closely tied compliance with American values to a specific policy, namely, to the prohibition of torture and the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center:

Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others.

That’s why we can never sacrifice them for expedience’s sake.

That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

That’s why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture. (Obama 2009/04/03)

In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are.

That’s why I closed Guantanamo.135

That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. (Obama 2009/04/03)

We must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.

That’s why we must promote our values by living them at home –

which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. (Obama 2009/12/01)

Even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength.

That is why I prohibited torture.

That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.

And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. (Obama 2009/12/10)

Clearly, certain actions had to be taken because these reflected America’s identity. Obama repeatedly combined the presentation of the ‘self’ with the ensuing conditional link ‘that’s why…that’s why’ which linguistically enhanced the impact of his argument and added rationality to his policies. These anaphors and parallelisms provided reasons for why certain things had to be done or had already been done. American values meant that changes had to be made to America’s detention policy. It is apparent, and elsewhere Obama stated this directly, that he wanted the United States to “serve as a good role model” (Obama 2009/06/01a). In this sense, it is striking that in exposing the American ‘self’, Obama’s statements often took on the form of an appeal. Instead of stating what the United States was, he used modal verbs to underline what ‘we’, the American people, ‘must be’ or ‘must do’, ‘must never do’, ‘can never do’ or ‘will do’ in the future. This indicates that although Obama verbally strengthened the sense of ‘who we are’, he did not believe that the nation was upholding these ideals. This led him to further justify the necessity of acting within the rules:

I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t. (Obama 2009/12/10)

America is stronger than any enemy – and we always have been – precisely because we do what’s right. (Obama 2009/04/29a)

Obama’s view that America’s values generated the nation’s identity, strength, and – as will be discussed below – security, led him to emphasize that the nation had to change its course in order to restore its moral authority:

America’s moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership. (IIP 2009/01/23a)

In line with this notion, Obama reiterated that he could confirm “without exception or equivocation” that the United States would not torture (Obama 2009/02/24, cf. 2009/04/03, 2009/04/06, 2009/05/21, 2009/07/07, 2009/09/23). With regard to content, this alliteration was absolute, and it constituted a promise to abandon all kinds of torturous measures. Moreover, it represented a further attempt to seize the moral high ground:

I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example. (Obama 2009/09/23)

We’re going to close Guantanamo. And we are going to ban torture. And we are going to once again achieve the kind of moral primacy that America had previously been known for. (Obama 2009/10/15)

There is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.

That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. (Obama 2009/02/24)

Obama was attempting to invoke the deeply rooted self-conception of Americans who consider themselves “morally sound, if not superior to other nations in their commitment to liberty and human rights” (Pfiffner 2010: 2). However, as already mentioned, regaining moral primacy was not an end in itself, or a mere question of morality. As will be elaborated below (see section 7.3.2), it was closely interlinked to America’s security and the country’s aim to shape world affairs. In this sense, America had to be a role model by living according to values that were understood as universal. As common in American interpretations, Obama presented American values as ultimate and therefore as generally effective. As noted earlier, he (Obama 2009/05/21, 2009/01/20) constituted American principles as ‘sacred’ and as embodying truth, and they were equated with human rights:

Democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion – those are not simply principles of the West […] but […] universal principles […]. (Obama 2009/06/01a)

These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. (Obama 2009/06/04)

I don’t think these are American ideals and I don’t think they are the monopoly of one country. They’re universal values. They’re human rights. (Obama 2009/07/07)

Consequently, Obama pointed out that America’s catalogue of values constituted the origin of the world as it should be; a world that “promotes dignity and opportunity and justice for all who stand with us” (Obama 2009/10/20). He stressed America’s “commitment” to these values and its “promise” to “support them everywhere” (Obama 2009/07/07). However, if these values were to be promoted by the United States in other regions of the world (Obama 2009/03/27, 2009/06/01a, 2009/06/01b, 2009/09/23, 2009/12/01, 2009/12/10), they also had to be observed at home. Again, Obama wanted the United States to function as an example. Therefore, he appealed to the American people to do so and to live up to the nation’s ideals. Clearly, this also had to be demonstrated with the case of Guantanamo and at other sites of injustice:

We must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples.

That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority. (Obama 2009/12/01)

By juxtaposing the strong metaphors of a ‘dark cloud of tyranny’ and ‘the light of freedom and justice’, Obama put forth another variation of the contrast between ‘us’ and ‘them’, albeit in a more general form. He called for a mobilization “of our might and moral suasion” to cope with the challenges (Obama 2009/12/01). The main challenge Obama was referring to here, was posed by terrorism and the members of al Qaeda. The next chapter outlines how Obama framed this ‘other’.

7.2.1 The Terrorist Other

Obama did not speak in dichotomies of ‘good versus evil’ and therefore did not use the abstract terms of ‘evil-ones’ or ‘evil-doers’. There were only a few instances where he alluded to a “vicious adversary” (Obama 2009/12/10) or mentioned that the American people had been “viciously attacked” (Obama 2009/12/01, cf. 2009/04/03). Although Obama clearly addressed the dangerousness of these “violent extremists” (Obama 2009/03/27, 2009/06/04) he was less willing to attribute a special status to them because of their ‘evilness’. On the contrary, Obama stated that once captured these terrorists were “similar to criminals who have engaged in violence of other types” (Obama 2009/03/12). His view seems close to that of Douglas Kellner on al Qaeda’s leader, bin Laden, in suggesting that demonizing the ‘other’ elevates its “status in the Arab world” and thus stimulates the support of “those who feel anger toward the West” (Kellner 2007: 628).

When Obama spoke about the attackers of 9/11 or others who posed a threat to the United States, he usually used rather neutral technical terms like “al Qaeda and its allies” (Obama 2009/03/27, 2009/05/06, 2009/06/26a, 2009/12/01), “al Qaeda and its extremist allies” (Obama 2009/03/27, 2009/05/06, 2009/09/23, 2009/10/20, 2009/10/28, 2009/12/01) or “al Qaeda and its affiliates” (Obama 2009/05/21). Often he simply spoke of “extremism” or “violent extremism” (Obama 2009/02/24, 2009/03/27, 2009/04/06, 2009/04/07, 2009/05/06, 2009/06/04, 2009/06/26a, 2009/09/23, 2009/10/20, 2009/12/01). This was an attempt to confine America’s enmity to specific extremist groups and to avoid the impression that the fight against terrorism was a fight against Islam or Muslims in general. Those who were addressed, however, were constituted as truly dangerous. They were “resourceful” and “resilient” (Obama 2009/10/20), yet they had nothing to offer, nothing “but hatred and destruction” (Obama 2009/09/23), “violence and despair” (Obama 2009/05/06), and “the injustice of disorder” (Obama 2009/05/21). In line with this, when using the term ‘war’ in reference to the fight against terrorism, Obama spoke of America being “at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates” (Obama 2009/05/21) or, more complicated, of being “at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” (Obama 2009/01/20).

7.2.2 The Barbaric Other

Although Obama often referred to America’s adversaries in a rather neutral tone and simply spoke of ‘al Qaeda’, there were instances where he attributed sheer barbarism to them. The ‘other’ was a “ruthless” (Obama 2009/03/27, cf. 2009/06/04) and “unscrupulous” (Obama 2009/04/29b, cf. 2009/04/20, 2009/04/21) enemy who was known to “blow up” people and buildings (Obama 2009/01/11, 2009/03/27, 2009/04/07, 2009/09/23). The great brutality of the terrorists was demonstrated by the fact that they did not simply kill, but they were prepared to “kill innocents” (Obama 2009/12/01), or even worse, they “slaughtered” them (Obama 2009/01/20, 2009/04/03, 2009/12/01). This image of massacre certainly increased the impression of the enemy’s bloodiness. Repeatedly, Obama spoke about the “innocent men, women and children” (Obama 2009/02/09, 2009/06/04, 2009/09/23, 2009/12/01) who had fallen victim to terrorists, and in referring to 9/11 he pointed out that the victims were just going to work and had not suspected that they would be attacked (Obama 2009/04/03). Consequently, 9/11 had been an even more “vicious, evil act” (Obama 2009/04/03). These statements helped illustrate the furtiveness and cruel perfidy of the ‘other’ and maximized the gap between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Like Bush, Obama ascribed the terrorists a lust to kill. In this framing, the terrorists were viewed as killing innocents not only “willingly” but “gladly” (Obama 2009/04/20). This also implied that they rejoiced about these brutal and “senseless” (Obama 2009/12/10) deeds. With al Qaeda came “death and destruction” (Obama 2009/10/20), since the organization was – as John Brennan, Obama’s Assistant for Counterterrorism put it – nothing but a “death cult” (Brennan 2009/08/06).

7.2.3 The Fanatic Other

Obama’s statements suggested that leading terrorists were so fierce in their determination that they could not be convinced by negotiations. In this sense, the ‘other’ was constructed as fanatical, even though Obama did not directly describe it as such. Instead, it was John Brennan once again who spoke of the “fanatical few” (Brennan 2009/08/06). However, Obama’s conception became clear when he pointed to the “uncompromising core” of the Taliban in Afghanistan who “must be met with force” and “must be defeated” (Obama 2009/03/27). According to this view, there were no other options to deal with this enemy. Obama’s view of al Qaeda was similar, and he highlighted his construction of the ‘other’ with a historic comparison:

Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. (Obama 2009/12/10)

In this statement, Obama puts al Qaeda’s leaders on a par with Hitler’s armies. He equates them in terms of the impossibility of convincing either through argumentation and explains this point as a matter of reason, or more clearly, of the limits of reason. In other words, these people were not human beings that could be reasoned with. However, as noticed before, Obama and his staff tended to limit their assessments. The ‘other’ was not an ‘evil-doer’ but a member of al Qaeda, and not all of the terrorists were fanatics but only a small proportion of them, that is, the ‘core’, a ‘few’ or the ‘leaders’ of al Qaeda. In contrast to Bush, Obama tended to avoid speaking in broad and all-inclusive terms. Nevertheless, in presenting his statement as ‘a recognition’ of history, Obama postulated a claim to truth by explaining the present through the categorized past. Hence, the leaders of al Qaeda were presented as just as irrational and determined as Hitler’s armies had been.

With the direct comparison between Hitler’s armies and al Qaeda, Obama’s rhetoric was close to that of Bush’s, who had called the terrorists the heirs of “fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism” (Bush 2001/09/20) and concluded that these people could not be appeased but had to be defeated (Bush 2001/12/07). Obama shared this conceptualization and it was expressed through the assumption that unlike “World War II, we can’t count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end” (Obama 2009/05/21). Moreover, he suggested that even if the United States were to change its policies and show more respect to the Muslim world, the terrorist organizations would continue to threaten America (Obama 2009/04/03). The reason for this was their ideological dazzlement: “These organizations are willing to kill innocent people because of a twisted, distorted ideology” (Obama 2009/04/03). Interestingly, in one instance Obama did acknowledge that there might be other motives for terrorist action. Speaking to students in Istanbul, he mentioned the “political cause” of terrorists, yet he did not elaborate on it and immediately rejected “blowing up innocent people for a political cause” (Obama 2009/04/07).

7.2.4 The Outcast Other

As was the case with Bush, Obama constituted the ‘other’ as an outcast enemy. It belonged to a minority that was lawless, “stateless” (Obama 2009/04/20) and boundless and “heeds no borders or laws of war” (Obama 2009/03/27). In contrast to communities within civilized societies, al Qaeda was “not constrained by a constitution” or the “rule of law” (Obama 2009/04/20, cf. 2009/04/21); in fact, it was “not bound by any rules” (Obama 2009/06/01b, cf. 2009/12/10). In addition, Bush’s and Obama’s framing showed conformity in denying the enemy true religiosity and access to Islam. Obama accused the ‘other’ of having instrumentalized Islam and of having turned it into a lethal ideology. The terrorists “have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam” and now “religion is used to justify the murder of innocents” (Obama 2009/12/10, cf. 2009/12/01). This was a powerful statement since Obama is known for having had first-hand experience of Islam. His position of being a Christian but also being familiar with Islam enabled him to emphasize that this violent approach was one “that people of all faiths reject” (Obama 2009/04/06, 2009/06/04). The terrorists were thus excluded from the community of believers, and because of their adherence to a ‘distorted ideology’, they were said to “have discredited and isolated themselves” (Obama 2009/09/23). The actions of the terrorists were not only “irreconcilable with the rights of human beings” but with Islam itself: “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent […] it is as if he has killed all mankind” (Obama 2009/06/04). Here, like Bush, Obama was attempting to hoist the terrorists with their own petard. He constituted the terrorists as wrong and as acting against the Koran they pretended to rely on. After having repeatedly emphasized that the terrorists killed innocents, Obama incriminated the ‘other’ by equating these murders with the murder of all mankind. Moreover, Obama contrasted the “enduring faith of over a billion” Muslims to the “narrow hatred of a few” (Obama 2009/06/04). They “kill in the name of God”, but their cause was neither just nor compatible “with the very purpose of faith” (Obama 2009/12/10). Obama disassociated al Qaeda from the faith of many and described the organization instead as a misled minority driven by hate.

7.2.5 The Bestial (Cancerous) Other

There are not many occasions where Obama spoke metaphorically in terms of the bestial ‘other’. As pointed out above, he mostly used the wording ‘al Qaeda and its allies’, and set out his aim with the phrase to ‘disrupt, dismantle and defeat’ al Qaeda. However, every now and then Obama referred to a vocabulary associated with wild animals and declared his intention to “root out the terrorists” (Obama 2009/03/27, 2009/04/03, cf. 2009/02/09), or he adjured the need to “hunt them down” (Obama 2009/01/26, cf. 2009/06/01a). In line with this, the ‘other’ was constituted as somewhat intangible. The enemy was “diffuse” (Obama 2009/12/01), operated from the shadows (Obama 2009/10/20) and was part of a “shadowy” (Obama 2009/12/01) “far-reaching network” (Obama 2009/01/20).

More noticeable in this respect is the use of a different, very powerful metaphor, that is, the metaphor of cancer. In presenting his administration’s strategy about how to proceed in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, Obama declared that “al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer” which could kill “Pakistan from within” (Obama 2009/03/27). In another speech, Obama pointed to the risk of al Qaeda spreading through Afghanistan (Obama 2009/12/01). Since Obama emphasized the notion that the security of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States were linked – an instance he stressed in his speeches as a “fundamental truth” (Obama 2009/05/06) – the message was clear: if the cancer were to spread, it would affect and endanger the United States as well. This rhetorical device was probably the strongest used by Obama since ‘cancer’ evokes a deeply rooted fear, namely, of something that grows (unnoticed) until it is too late. As Susan Sontag (1978: 14) noted in her work on Illness as Metaphor, ‘cancer’ works “insidiously” and is “terminal”. Even if a diagnosis of cancer no longer represents an automatic death sentence, death is always present as part of the disease. Therefore, in the audience’s collective perception, the malignancy of cancer is still deadly and this underlines the sense of grave danger.

7.3.1 The Threatening Other

Obama was very clear about that the American people lived in “dangerous times” (Obama 2009/04/20) and remained “a target” (Obama 2009/12/01); he left no doubt that “we have very real enemies” (Obama 2009/04/21) and “very real security threats out there” (Obama 2009/04/15). Speaking of 9/11, he showed conviction that “the organization that planned those attacks intends to carry out further attacks” (Obama 2009/06/01b); and when Obama justified the continuing effort to “prevent bombs going off or planes going into buildings” he implied that al Qaeda indeed aimed to commit further atrocities of this sort. Obama thus stressed that the United States could not allow al Qaeda to “kill another 3,000 Americans or more” (Obama 2009/04/29a). The open scale of ‘three thousands or more’ fits with Obama’s concept since the extremists were said to be “determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can” (Obama 2009/06/04, cf. 2009/03/27). It even seemed to be their only purpose since the main characteristic mentioned about al Qaeda was that it was “an organization that is out to kill Americans” (Obama 2009/06/01b). To cut down on counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan would therefore “create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks” (Obama 2009/12/01). In terms of numbers, however, Obama’s narrative was less dramatic than that of his predecessor: the Bush administration had argued that the enemy was seeking to kill ‘all Americans’ or ‘millions’ of them.

In Obama’s narrative, al Qaeda posed the “greatest threat to our people” (Obama 2009/03/27) and “the single most direct threat to our national security interests” (Obama 2009/04/29a). The organization was presented as an enemy “on the offensive” (Obama 2009/05/06) and as one that was “actively planning attacks on the United States homeland” (Obama 2009/03/27). Although Obama did not always speak in a declarative manner, he did so on this issue. Instead of claiming a possibility, he spoke with absolute certainty, and often conveyed a tone of urgency: “We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again” (Obama 2009/05/21). On another occasion the president spelled out the enemy’s strength about which “we all know” (Obama 2009/10/20). Here, he used the inclusive ‘we’ to constitute his notion as common knowledge and thus mark it as fact. According to Obama, the terrorists were “determined”, “resourceful” and “resilient”; he first described them as powerful and subsequently stated that they were “still plotting” (Obama 2009/10/20). All this demonstrated the need to act. The immediateness of the menace was further highlighted by statements like “right now […] there are people plotting to take American lives” (Obama 2009/05/21, my emphasis) or “as I speak” in training camps “new attacks are being plotted” (Obama 2009/12/01, my emphasis). Even worse, ‘they’, the terrorists, were said to be among ‘us’. Obama emphasized that the threat was not hypothetical but real and underscored this by mentioning that during the last few months “we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here […] to commit new acts of terror” (Obama 2009/12/01). The effect of this notion was to provide the impression that a threat was imminent, an impression that was aggravated by the remark that “no one can ever promise that there won’t be another attack on America’s soil” (Obama 2009/10/20). Consequently, Obama thanked the members of the FBI for “guarding against future attacks” (Obama 2009/10/20) and reminded CIA staff that there was “no margin for error” (Obama 2009/04/20). All these statements pointed to impending danger.

As could be expected, the threat was not merely constituted in terms of the national level: like Bush, Obama constructed the threat as global. The terrorists threatened “the United States, our friends and our allies” including “the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan” (Obama 2009/03/27). In even broader statements Obama declared that al Qaeda presented “an enormous threat not just to the United States but to the world” (Obama 2009/04/07), which also meant that the organization was not only plotting against the American people but “people around the world” (Obama 2009/05/06). Consequently, Obama stated that the resorts of al Qaeda at the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan represented “an international security challenge of the highest order” because “the safety of people around the world is at stake” (Obama 2009/03/27). Obama underscored this claim by enumerating terrorist attacks in London, Bali, Islamabad, Kabul, North Africa and the Middle East, and speculated about al Qaeda attacks in Asian, European and African cities (Obama 2009/03/27). Therefore, although Obama did not refer to ‘civilization itself’ as his predecessor had done by speaking in dichotomies, he still presented terrorism as a threat with a global reach.

As with Bush’s discourse, the severity of threat was dramatically increased with the reference to nuclear weapons. Obama also spoke about this issue with great certainty and garnered his presidential authority by using the ‘we’-form when declaring: “We know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them” (Obama 2009/12/01). Stated as such, it was clear that the caveat also had to be absolute: “We must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist,” Obama reasoned, because if the enemy were to gain access to these weapons, it would lead to “acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine” (Obama 2009/09/23). On another occasion he spoke of a “risk of catastrophe” and the murder of innocents “on a horrific scale” (Obama 2009/12/10). Nuclear weapons, therefore, had to be secured and kept out of the hands of the terrorists (Obama 2009/12/01). Again, Obama emphasized that the global nature of the threat meant that this was a matter of shared international security and responsibility. In a dramatic manner he stressed that “the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet” (Obama 2009/04/03). Therefore, the message was clear: it was imperative that this technology did not get into the hands of “a few small men with outsized rage” (Obama 2009/12/10). Hence, Obama spoke on behalf of non-proliferation “to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons” (Obama 2009/05/21). Overall, Obama constituted the threat in terms that were similar to those put forward by Bush with regard to content and presentation, with the exception that Obama did not compare the threat to the holocaust.