Language of War: How 9/11’s Lexicon Still Haunts Us Today

The events of September 11, 2001, marked a turning point in modern history. The impact on human life was devastating, but the way it reshaped the language of conflict had far-reaching implications. The phrase “war on terror” legitimized a new era of militarism, surveillance, and human rights abuses that still haunt us today.

The post-9/11 lexicon had a sanitizing effect on torture. What was once brutal and inhumane became “enhanced interrogation,” downplaying the reality of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions. The CIA’s secret detention facilities, or “black sites,” allowed policymakers to circumvent ordinary judicial processes. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay were labeled “enemy combatants,” stripping them of their basic human rights.

This language was not just a matter of semantics; it was a deliberate attempt to obscure the reality of what was happening on the ground. Policymakers and military leaders used terms like “surgical” or “targeted” strikes to justify the killing of civilians as a necessary evil. The phrase “war on terror” encompassed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, and the expansion of surveillance powers at home.

The legacy of the war on terror is still embedded in US politics, influencing counterterrorism policies and immigration laws. Leonie Jackson, a senior international relations lecturer at Northumbria University, notes that “we are still very much inside the logic of this ‘war’.” The phrase may have fallen out of favor with the White House, but its impact on our collective psyche remains.

The use of drone strikes has become a staple of modern warfare, often targeting civilians and exacerbating the terrorism we’re trying to combat. The erosion of human rights and due process has been justified by the need to “keep us safe,” a mantra that has become increasingly hollow. This language has normalized practices that would be unacceptable in peacetime.

The language of war is not just a matter of words; it’s a powerful tool for shaping our perceptions and actions. By using terms like “evil” to describe enemies, policymakers create a binary narrative that ignores the complexities of conflict. Colonial ideas of civilization and barbarism have long influenced Western notions of good and evil, as Jason Thomas notes in his paper on 9/11.

The consequences of this linguistic shift are far-reaching. We’re still dealing with the fallout from Guantanamo Bay, where hundreds of people were detained without charges or trial for years. The use of torture and abusive interrogation methods has become a disturbing norm, perpetuating a cycle of violence that’s hard to break. As we continue to expand our surveillance powers at home, we risk eroding the very freedoms we’re trying to protect.

Looking back on 9/11 and its aftermath, it’s clear that language played a crucial role in shaping our response. The war on terror was not just a military campaign but a cultural and linguistic one as well. We must recognize how this lexicon has shaped our perceptions of conflict and human rights, and work to dismantle the narratives that perpetuate harm.

Only by acknowledging the power of language can we begin to change its effects. It’s time to reclaim a more nuanced understanding of conflict, prioritizing human rights, due process, and accountability over the convenient euphemisms of war. The legacy of 9/11 may be complex and multifaceted, but it’s our responsibility to grapple with its implications and strive for a more just and equitable future.