Framing Peace and Victory: A Critical Discourse Analysis of President Trump's Rhetoric on Ending the Afghanistan War and Defeating ISIS

Abstract

This paper analyzed the Trump presidency’s counterterrorism and the Afghanistan Peace Agreement discourse, analyzing how through strategic framing and meaning making tools, policies were justified and leadership narratives augmented. The research focused on how language, power and ideology construct and naturalize public opinion and provide legitimation for armed force and diplomacy. This study employed a qualitative research design and critical discourse analysis as the main theoretical perspective adopted from Fairclough’s model, Framing Theory, as well as the Discourse-Historical Approach to analyze how nationalist considerations were aligned with the global agendas. Sources of data for this research were speeches, press releases, and media articles purposely identified and obtained in addition to secondary sources such as policies statements. Textual, framing, contextual and ideological analysis was performed to identify the rhetorical endeavors and taboos that are embedded in the discourse. The study shows that the administration used victory frames, leadership frames, and global threat frames with assertive language, appealing to vision, and expert validation to present itself as a change maker in response to contemporary threats. To some extent, the hatred towards other people was connected with reliance on nationalist values combined with international cooperation in order to mobilize public opinion to support policy objectives and promote the image of the U.S as the defender of national interests and as a leader in the fight against terrorism. This work adds value to political communication scholarship because it shows how language facilitates the construction of power and action justification, and it offers an interpretative approach to leadership narratives in foreign policy. Future studies include synergy of comparative political language; analysis of media reports on political rhetoric; and appreciation of public views regarding utilization of political language in given policy determinations.