Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Encroachments on State Sovereignty: The Argumentation Strategies of the George W. Bush Administration

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the world has increasingly embraced globalization, temptations to encroach on traditional boundaries of state sovereignty for reasons of self-interest mount. Argumentation studies provide an important lens for examining the public discourse used to justify such moves. This essay examines the Bush administration’s strategic use of the definitional processes of association and dissociation to build its public case for regime change in Afghanistan. After exploring how the Bush administration’s early rhetoric after 9/11 failed to actually provide the Taliban a choice to remain in power, the essay reveals three combinations of the terrorism/state relationship that functioned as an argument by definition to gain support for the US campaign to overthrow the regime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bush, G. W. 2001a. Federal document clearing house political transcripts: Lexis Nexis academic. Georgia State University, Pullen Library.

  • Bush, G. W. 2001b. Federal News Service: Lexis Nexis Academic, Georgia State University, Pullen Library.

  • Dyke, N. B. 1982. Mar 25, Memo through Admiral Murphy to Vice President, Folder, “Narco-Terrorism [3 of 5],” OA/ID 19850, Bush Vice Presidential Records, National Security Affairs, George Bush Presidential Library.

  • Ehninger D., and W. Brockriede 1963. Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. 1986. June 28, Thinking about terrorism. Nation, p. 873.

  • Goodnight, T. G. 1981. The personal, technical, and public sphere of argument: A speculative inquiry into the act of deliberation. Journal of the American Forensics Association 18: 214–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, D. 1991. Distinction, argumentation, and the rhetorical construction of the real. Argumentation and Advocacy 27: 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, B. 1975. International terrorism: A new mode of conflict. Los Angeles: Crescent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kash, D. 1997. Abducting terrorists under PDD-39: Much ado about nothing new. American University International Law Review 13: 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laqueur, W. 1987. Reflections of terrorism. In The terrorism reader eds. W. Laqueur and L. Alexander, 378–392. New York: NAL Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, R. C. 1984, Aug. 15, Memo to E. Meese, Folder, “Terrorism Vol II 1/1/84-8/31/84 (8404913),” Box 91400, Executive Secretariat, National Security Council: Records, Subject File. Ronald Reagan Library.

  • McGee, B. R. 1999. The argument from definition revisited: Race and definition in the progressive era. Argumentation and Advocacy 35: 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: Norton.

  • Perelman C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillar, P. R. 2001. Terrorism and U.S. foreign policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, C. 2001. Federal news service: Lexis Nexis academic, Georgia State University, Pullen Library.

  • Press Clips, National Journal. 1990 (Dec. 15). Folder, “Persian Gulf Working Group: Polls,” OA/ID 03194, Paul McNeill, Subject File, Office of Communications, Bush Presidential Records, George Bush Presidential Library.

  • Press Clips, National Journal. 1990 (Jan 12). Folder, “Persian Gulf Working Group: Polls,” OA/ID 03194, Paul McNeill, Subject File, Office of Communications, Bush Presidential Records, George Bush Presidential Library.

  • Press Clips, USA Today. 1990 (Nov 13). Folder, “Persian Gulf Working Group: Polls,” OA/ID 03194, Paul McNeill, Subject File, Office of Communications, Bush Presidential Records, George Bush Presidential Library.

  • Public Opinion Online. 1989. #0005872, Roper Center at University of Connecticut: Lexis Nexis academic, Georgia State University, Pullen Library, 27 June 2001.

  • Public Report of the Vice President’s Task Force on Combating Terrorism. 1986. Feb., Folder, “Terrorism,” OA/ID 14923, Bush Vice Presidential Records, Press Office, George Bush Presidential Library.

  • Rumsfeld, D. 2001a. Federal document clearing house political transcripts: Lexis Nexis academic, Georgia State University, Pullen Library.

  • Rumsfeld, D. 2001b. Federal news service: Lexis Nexis academic, Georgia State University, Pullen Library.

  • Schiappa, E. 1985. Dissociation in the arguments of rhetorical theory. Journal of the American Forensics Association 22: 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, E. 1993. Arguing about definitions. Argumentation 7: 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, E. 2003. Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, R. 2002. Carving up free exercise: Dissociation and ‘Religion’ in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of State. 2004. Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2003, Office of Secretary of State, Office of Counterterrorism Coordinator.

  • Van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst, and F. S. Henkemans. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2001. Persuasive definitions and public policy arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 37: 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimann, G., and C. Winn. 1994. The threat of terror: Mass media and international terrorism. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, C. 2005. Narrative reframing of public argument: George Bush’s handling of the Persian Gulf conflict. In Warranting assent: Case studies in argument evaluation, ed. E. Schiappa, 33–55. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, C. K. 2006. In the name of terrorism: Presidents on political violence in the Post-World War II Era. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, B. 2002. Bush at war. New York: Simon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 1980. Lyndon Johnson redefines ‘Equal Opportunity:’ The beginnings of affirmative action. Central States Speech Journal 31: 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 1998. Definitions. In Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques, ed. J. F. Klumpp, 1–11. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D., C. Miller-Tutzauer, and F. E. Tutzauer. 1984. Reagan’s safety net for the truly needy: The rhetorical uses of definition. Central States Speech Journal 35: 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia State University, 38 Peachtree Center Avenue, Atlanta, GA, 30302-4038, USA

    Carol K. Winkler

Authors
  1. Carol K. Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol K. Winkler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Winkler, C.K. Encroachments on State Sovereignty: The Argumentation Strategies of the George W. Bush Administration. Argumentation 22, 473–488 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9082-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9082-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation