Words of war: The Persian Gulf crisis and American public discourse

The general purpose of this research is to examine the conceptual frameworks through which Americans in the post-Cold war era imagine war to be legitimate. As the first full scale American military engagement of the new era, the Persian Gulf Crisis offers an opportunity to examine the shifting normative context for American foreign policy, and in particular for the decision to go to war. During the period between August 2, 1990 and January 15, 1991, public debate raged within the United States about how best to respond to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Examination of Presidential, media and citizen speech during this period reveals that there were two incommensurable and often competing discourses about the Crisis: a 'moral' discourse centering around the concept of international community and the violation of international law, and a 'strategic' discourse about national interest. This study examines the discursive structuration of the Persian Gulf Crisis as it evolved through the rhetorical interaction of President, mass media and public. Transcripts of Presidential statements, of television news broadcasts and of selected radio and television call-in programs constitute the data set for such an examination. Qualitative text analysis techniques are utilized to illuminate the formal characteristics, in particular the narrative structure and use of metaphors, of both 'moral' and 'strategic' discourses, as well as the value assumptions upon which they rest, their relative influence upon public opinion, and through public opinion on political decision making.