The 'war on terror' lexicon that sanitised US violence after 9/11

September 12, 2026 at 10:26 AM2 min

This digest was compiled by AI from multiple sources — links to the originals are below.

The phrase 'war on terror' came to define a US era of invasions, Guantanamo Bay detentions, and expanded surveillance after the September 11 attacks. Experts say a new bureaucratic lexicon sanitised violence and erased the humanity of targets. Twenty-five years later, the phrase is heard less from the White House, but its themes remain deeply rooted in US politics.

Key Facts

Nine days after the 2001 attacks, President George W Bush told Congress the 'war on terror' would not end until every terrorist group of global reach was found, stopped and defeated.
Congress passed the Authorisation for Use of Military Force, signed by Bush on September 18, 2001, granting broad authority to use force against those he determined had planned or aided the attacks.
Torture became 'enhanced interrogation', cross-border seizures became 'extraordinary rendition', and Guantanamo Bay detainees were designated 'enemy combatants'.
Leonie Jackson of Northumbria University says the legacy of the war on terror is everywhere in US politics today, arguing 'we are still very much inside the logic of this war'.
Christopher Baker-Beall of Bournemouth University says declaring a 'war on terror' created a conflict without geographical boundary, clearly defined enemy, or natural endpoint.

The New Lexicon

Torture became 'enhanced interrogation' and cross-border seizures became 'extraordinary rendition'. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay were designated 'enemy combatants', while deadly attacks were described as 'surgical' or 'targeted' strikes. A whole new vocabulary of war, laced with bureaucracy and precision, moved into the US political mainstream after the September 11 attacks. Experts say this lexicon sanitised violence and erased the humanity of its targets.

A War Without Front Lines

Nine days after the 2001 attacks, President George W Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and declared the war on terror would not end until every terrorist group of global reach was found, stopped and defeated. Congress had already passed the Authorisation for Use of Military Force, signed by Bush on September 18, 2001. The authorisation gave the president broad authority to use force against those he determined had planned, authorised, committed or aided the September 11 attacks, or anyone who had harboured those responsible. Christopher Baker-Beall of Bournemouth University said terrorism is not a state, territory or even a specific organisation, but a tactic. Declaring a 'war on terror' therefore created a conflict without an obvious geographical boundary, clearly defined enemy, or natural endpoint.

Legacy in US Politics

Twenty-five years later, the phrase 'war on terror' is heard far less frequently from the White House. But many of the themes and ideas it helped to embed remain deeply rooted in US politics. Leonie Jackson, a senior international relations lecturer at Northumbria University, said the legacy of the war on terror is everywhere in US politics today. She argued that 'we are still very much inside the logic of this war'.