‘War on terror’: How 9/11 changed the language of conflict

What the report says

Al Jazeera’s article examines how the September 11, 2001 attacks reshaped the language used by US officials and, in turn, the politics of conflict. It argues that expressions such as “war on terror,” “enhanced interrogation,” “extraordinary rendition,” and “enemy combatants” helped frame controversial military and security measures in more clinical terms, reducing public scrutiny of their human and legal costs.

The piece says this vocabulary became central to the Bush administration’s response, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the creation of Guantanamo Bay as a detention site, the use of secret CIA “black sites,” and the expansion of surveillance powers through the Patriot Act. It also notes that the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, reflecting a broader shift toward security policy focused on what people might do rather than what they had done.

Quoted experts in the article say the language of the period created moral distance, gave actions a veneer of legality, and helped cast the conflict in moral terms of “good” versus “evil.” The article argues that this framing also contributed to public desensitization and supported policies that eroded rights and due process.

While the phrase “war on terror” is now used less often by the White House, the article says its logic remains visible in current US politics and security debates, making its legacy important for understanding how governments justify force, surveillance, and detention.