Not Waiting for the Barbarians

Mark B. Salter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230608924_6
2007-01-01
Abstract:The war on terror is portrayed in American policy and public discourse simultaneously as a clash of civilizations and war for Civilization. Bush describes the new enemy of September 15, 2001: “a group of barbarians have declared war on the American people” (2001a). A key question for scholars must be: why this particular discourse, and why this discourse now? What are the peculiar or unique characteristics of the civilizations discourse that make it so strategically useful? In this chapter, I trace the function of the civilizations discourse in the attempts to create a domestic consensus on the war on terror, both strategically and tactically. This chapter suggests the particular characteristics of the civilizations discourse that make it so useful in the war on terror. O’Hagan argues that it provides a mid-range theory that encompasses a number of anxieties brought about by globalization and allows a nonterritorial consideration of political communities (2005: 384). To push this analysis further, I contend that there are three identifiable characteristics of the civilizations discourse itself, and the figure of the barbarian, which make it particularly useful and flexible in the rhetoric of the war on terror. The civilizations discourse elides the distinctions between in-groups, provides a portable state of exception that makes annihilation of the barbaric the only possible reaction, and diminishes the enemy through a strategy of individuation, portraying the threat as a series of individuals rather than a group or community.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?