A Case Study of Crusader Rhetoric During the War on Terror
Summary
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration’s rhetoric surrounding the War on Terror drew heavily on imagery of the medieval Crusades, an invocation that was far from incidental. This paper explores how such Crusader language functioned as a form of antagonistic memory, a concept where collective identity is shaped through the stark opposition of ‘us’ versus ‘them.’ By asking how political leaders used Crusader rhetoric to frame the conflict and influence international relations, the paper uncovers the mechanisms through which historical narratives can be strategically weaponized.
Two theoretical frameworks guide the analysis. First, the notion of antagonistic memory, as developed by Anna Cento Bull and Hans Lauge Hansen, shows how external enemies are cast as existential threats to unify a population in times of crisis, simplifying complex conflicts into a moral battle of good versus evil. Second, Eric Hobsbawm’s idea of the invention of tradition reveals how seemingly ancient narratives are often modern constructions, crafted to legitimize authority and galvanize national sentiment. The paper argues that the political reimagining of the Crusades, stripped of historical nuance, served as such an invented tradition, reshaped to serve the ideological needs of the early 21st century.
By framing the War on Terror as a crusade, the Bush administration not only justified military interventions in the Middle East but also entrenched a ‘clash of civilizations’ worldview. Iconic statements like “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” exemplified this rhetorical strategy, leaving little room for ambivalence. This language resonated deeply, particularly because the 9/11 attacks targeted potent symbols of American identity, creating a fertile environment for narratives of existential threat.
The impact of this rhetoric was profound. On the domestic front, it rallied public support, unified the nation, and inspired commemorative rituals, such as annual 9/11 memorials, that embedded the conflict within a sacred narrative of righteous struggle. These rituals acted as invented traditions, reinforcing a collective memory shaped by moral absolutes. Yet internationally, the use of Crusader language had far more contentious effects. In the Muslim world, it evoked centuries-old memories of Western aggression, inadvertently validating the propaganda of extremist groups like al-Qaeda and contributing to a cycle of global polarization.
Ultimately, the paper argues that while antagonistic memory can serve as a powerful unifying force, it does so at a cost, marginalizing dissent, deepening divisions, and promoting exclusionary identities. As such, this study urges a more critical awareness of how historical references are mobilized in political discourse and calls for more inclusive, pluralistic approaches to remembering. By unpacking the legacy of Crusader rhetoric in the War on Terror, the paper sheds light on the enduring power of historical myth in shaping the politics of the present.
Geïnteresseerd geraakt en wil je meer lezen? De volledige paper (Engels) is hier te vinden.
Bron omslagfoto: ‘President George W. Bush delivers an address regarding the September 11 terrorist attacs on the United States to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol, photo by Eric Draper, The U.S. National Archives, Flickr Commons.
Wesley Beukers MA (Bunschoten, 2002) studied the MA History of Politics and Society at Utrecht University. During his studies, he interned at the Scientific Institute of the Christian Union, where he wrote a policy reflection on EU enlargement for the party’s Senate faction. He is interested in the ways the past continues to shape the present, with a particular focus on memory politics, identity, and political history. In daily life, he is actively involved in local politics as a member of the Christian Union. He works at Utrecht University as project coordinator Security, Terrorism and History. He serves as secretary of both the Security History Network and the interdisciplinary research platform Security in Open Societies, and is part of the project team of Prof. Dr. Beatrice de Graaf.
