‘War on terror’: How 9/11 changed the language of conflict
This article examines how the post-9/11 era introduced a new political lexicon, such as 'enhanced interrogation' and 'enemy combatants,' to justify military actions. Experts argue that this language helped sanitize violence and continues to influence modern US political logic.
Why it matters
Understanding the linguistic framing of conflict is essential for analyzing the long-term impact of the 'War on Terror' on human rights and foreign policy.
The events of September 11, 2001 spawned a new lexicon which effectively sanitised the erosion of human rights.
x whatsapp-stroke copylink google Add Al Jazeera on Google info Former US President George W Bush speaks about his administration's so-called global war on terror at a high school in Tipp City, Ohio in 2007 [Larry Downing/Reuters] By Caolán Magee Published On 12 Sep 2026 12 Sep 2026 Torture became “enhanced interrogation”. Suspects were seized and removed across borders through “extraordinary rendition”. Detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were designated “enemy combatants”, while deadly attacks were described as “surgical” or “targeted” strikes.
In the years after the September 11 attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center, a whole new vocabulary of war, laced with the language of bureaucracy and precision, moved into the political mainstream in the United States.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in