Australia’s ‘War on Terror’ Discourse Essay Example

ministers and political figures in shaping Australia's security and foreign policy. The author discusses opponents who questioned the prevailing narrative and explores ways in which they were undermined. Gleeson offers both empirical evidence and persuasive reasoning to explain how Australia ended up adopting misguided positions under Howard's leadership. After the 9/11 attack, Howard's government implemented a response strategy for Australia that was deemed ineffective.

The book discusses how Howard utilized his deep cultural grammar skills to gain popularity in the Australian community. Gleeson also analyzes how Howard's strict approach to security and terrorism created division in Australian society and undermined social harmony (Gleeson, 2014). Gleeson adeptly reveals specific details and analytical evidence on how Howard concealed his significant spending on national security, including his involvement in the Iraq war.

According to the author, Howard gained more support from the Australian public by instilling fear that the "tower of threat" from Iraq posed a significant danger and that war was necessary. Despite Australia's involvement in the Iraq war, they still remained vulnerable. Moreover, the author argues that the discourse of the "war on terror" hindered Australia's ability to effectively combat terrorism and compelled people to view it as an attack requiring military action. Similarly, the author contends that the use of "war" as a metaphor advocated for using force and military intervention to address issues of terrorism and national insecurity. The book provides a broader context for discussing how metaphors have manipulated the Australian public and shaped their discourse.

The 9/11 attacks had a significant impact on military roles and led to Howard implementing counter-terrorism measures to enhance national security. According to Gleeson (2014), there has been a

blurring of the lines between military action and law enforcement policing as they both aim for a common objective using different approaches. Gleeson further discusses how the "war on terror" in Australia has affected system transparency, community cohesion, and human rights. The book utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine the inception of the war on terror discourse and its connection to the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Australia, and Europe, as well as Australia's involvement in the U.S-led war on terror.

In chapters four and five of Gleeson's (2014) book, the author analyzes the empirical speeches given by Prime Minister John Howard and other influential ministers and actors involved in the war on terror discourse during his time as leader of the Australian government. The book, written in 2014, covers events from 2001 to the end of Howard's government in 2007, as well as important moments in Australia's history related to this discourse. This comprehensive coverage is especially valuable for current politicians and leaders who are facing challenging situations within the government. It is worth mentioning that this book was published at the same time as Australia commemorated the Cronulla riots that took place ten years earlier.

The sentencing of a 15-year old boy to life imprisonment for a terrorist plot has caused controversy, leading to a debate on Prime Minister Tony Abbott's views. Abbott has urged for a religious revolution within the Muslim community and emphasized that not all cultures are equal. Katherine Gleeson's book, Australia's Terror on War, examines terrorism and counter-terrorism measures during this time period. The book explores how language, politics, and power can be utilized to enhance political opportunities in Australia.

Gleeson, an independent researcher and writer, specifically addresses multiple political and societal matters.

Having earned a PhD in Politics and International Relations, Gleeson possesses the necessary knowledge to examine theoretical and practical elements of war discourse. She acquired her doctorate from the University of New South Wales, alongside a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Newcastle in Australia. Gleeson's research focuses on diverse societal subjects such as political discourses, social transformation, democratic involvement, political shifts, and international political structures. To investigate Howard's speeches and conduct forensic analysis, she employs critical and genealogical discourse analysis techniques.

In her book, Gleeson (2014) showcases her expertise by conducting thorough research on historical events that parallel her analysis and highlight Howard's methodical approach to garnering public support. Gleeson's book arguments regarding the war on terror align with the ongoing public discussions among Australian politicians and leaders. Notable incidents triggering substantial public debates include the tragic loss of a young boy's life in the 2002 Bali bombing and the Cronulla riots in 2005.

In the 2002 Bali bombing, Brain Deegan expressed his disappointment to Howard through a letter, in which he compared Howard's support for the war on terror to his son's death. Despite Howard's attempt to disregard the letter—published in The Australian—the public and social commentary supported the father's sorrow over Howard's endorsement of the US' war on terror. The Cronulla riots in 2005 were referred to by Gleeson as a "localisation of the war on terror," prompting Surf Life Saving to launch a campaign aimed at promoting social unity and diversity. Gleeson's perspective on the war on terror discourse focuses on Howard's manipulation of the fear of war to

gain popularity and retain his position in office following the unfavorable polls in August 2001. (Gleeson, 2014).

She also examines Australia's involvement in the US-led war on terror and investigates four significant events: the Bali bombing, Tampa, 9/11, and the 'Let's look out for Australia' Campaign (LLOFA) discourses. Furthermore, in chapters four and five, Gleeson demonstrates how Howard took independent action in responding to major security issues that emerged. According to the analysis, Howard utilized representations of identity and threats to instill fear and rationalize his actions as Prime Minister. Gleeson's main bias is in illustrating how Howard utilized the war on terror as a means of attaining public support and advancing his societal views.

I agree with Gleeson's methods, particularly during the Tampa Palapa I sinking incident where Howard stated that they did not want to lose control of the border or the flow of people. This situation exemplifies how Howard utilized a threat in order to enforce a particular policy, and Gleeson skillfully revealed this. (Gleeson, 2014). The Australian war on terror is significant as it sheds light on how politicians and leaders manipulate threat and fear to implement policies within societies. Moreover, Gleeson's work is important because it demonstrates that countering terrorism should not solely rely on domestic policies, but rather it becomes a means for politicians to gain popularity.

Both Presidents Bush and Obama employed military actions in response to major events. President Bush initiated the "war on terror" after the 9/11 attacks, receiving backing from Howard, leading to their invasion of Iraq in 2003. Similarly, President Obama aimed to confront the Islamic State through military intervention, with Abbott's assistance through deploying more

troops to gain public approval. These actions demonstrate how language used by Ministers played a vital role in shaping foreign policy and ensuring national security in their respective nations (Lee-Koo, 2016).

The books provide important insights into the study of war, particularly regarding the significance of the US-led war on terror on domestic national security and foreign policy in Australia. The opposition and riots triggered by the war on terror, as well as their impact on government, are crucial elements in understanding the discourse surrounding the war. Furthermore, studying this discourse helps comprehend its societal impact and the functioning of political operations within society. Additionally, it highlights the importance of social support in dealing with governmental and political threats.

According to Lee-Koo's study (2016), Howard's approach to war involved using violence, exclusion, and anxiety about sovereignty. This caused further alienation of minority groups and is an important topic for examination. Gleeson's book, "The Australian 'terror on war'," reveals how Howard's government used identity politics to gain public support, making it a significant contribution to history. Gleeson, an independent researcher, analyzed Howard's speeches on different occasions using both empirical and critical methods. Howard successfully exploited the discourse on war terror by playing on fears of invasion and the need to protect sovereignty.

The main goal of his speeches was always to garner support for a policy, exemplified by the sinking of Tampa Palapa. Gleeson argues that dangerous discourses and fearmongering are not effective in reducing the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Her research is valuable in assisting politicians and leaders in making informed decisions concerning challenging societal issues.

References

• Gleeson, K. (2014). Australia's 'war on terror' discourse. Surrey, England: Ashgate
  

Publishing, Ltd.

Accessed on 9 Aug, 2016, the article "Australia's war on terror discourse" can be found at the following URL: http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australian_outlook/australias-war-on-terror-discourse/.