Témata prací (Výběr práce)Témata prací (Výběr práce)(verze: 368)
Detail práce
   Přihlásit přes CAS
U. S. Presidential War Rhetoric - QCA
Název práce v češtině: Válečná rétorika amerických prezidentů - QCA
Název v anglickém jazyce: U. S. Presidential War Rhetoric - QCA
Klíčová slova: spravedlivá válka rétorika kvalitativní obsahová analýza spojené státy
Klíčová slova anglicky: just war rhetoric qualitative content analysis united states america
Akademický rok vypsání: 2019/2020
Typ práce: diplomová práce
Jazyk práce: angličtina
Ústav: Katedra bezpečnostních studií (23-KBS)
Vedoucí / školitel: Mgr. Jan Ludvík, Ph.D.
Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
Datum přihlášení: 31.07.2020
Datum zadání: 31.07.2020
Datum a čas obhajoby: 24.09.2020 09:00
Místo konání obhajoby: Pekařská 16, JPEK312, 312, Malá učebna, 3.patro
Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby:31.07.2020
Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 24.09.2020
Oponenti: Mgr. Václav Vlček, Ph.D.
 
 
 
Kontrola URKUND:
Seznam odborné literatury
• Young, G. (2010). the Setting : Emphasis of, 49(3), 591–605.
• Yoo, J. C. (2000). UN Wars , US War Powers, 1(2).
• Skinner, R. M. (2009). George W . Bush and the Partisan Presidency.
• Shane, B. S. (2005). Bush ’ s Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst, (May 2003).
• Savoy, J. (2010). Lexical Analysis of US Political Speeches *, (2), 123–141.
• Sarfo, E., & Krampa, E. A. (2013). Language at War : A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism, 3(2), 378–390.
• Quarterly, T. W. (2010). Globalisation , the Exceptionalism and on Terror the, 27(6), 963–986.
• Ostrom, E. (2013). Theory of Collective Action A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Presidential Address , American Political Science Association , 92(1), 1–22.
• Ngai, M. M. (n.d.). Transnationalism and the Transformation of the " Other ": Response to the Presidential Address, 59–65.
• Kramer, R. C., & Michalowski, R. J. (2014). War , Aggression and State Crime, (May). https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azi032
• Kennedy, L., & Lucas, S. (2002). Enduring Freedom: Public Diplomacy and U.S. Foreign Policy, 309–333.
• Kavanagh, J. J. (1997). U . S War Powers and the United Nations Security Council, 20(1).
• Juergensmeyer, M. (2010). 2009 Presidential Address : Beyond Words and War : The Global Future of Religion, 78(4), 882–895. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfq048
• BARABAS, J., JERIT, J. Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C, 2010. Pp. 53
• Ivie, R. L. (2016). Images of Savagery in American Justifications for War, (November 1980). https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758009376037
• Ivie, R. (2016). Presidential Motives for War, (October 1974). https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637409383241
• Hodges, A., & Hodges, A. (2013). The Generic U . S . Presidential War Narrative : Justifying Military Force and Imagining the Nation.
• Flint, C., & Falah, G. (2004). How the United States justified its war on terrorism : prime morality and the construction of a ‘ just war ,’ (October 2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000308429
• Crawford, B. N. C. (n.d.). Just War Theory and the, 5–25.
• Cloud, D. L. (2004). “ To Veil the Threat of Terror ”: Afghan Women and the Ͻ Clash of Civilizations Ͼ in the Imagery of the U . S . War on Terrorism, 90(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0033563042000270726
• Alicantina, R., & Ingleses, E. (2006). Speeches and Declarations : A War of Words Antonio Reyes-Rodríguez University of Illinois, 19, 365–386.
• U.C. Davis L. Rev. 321 2003-2004. (2004), 321–378.
Předběžná náplň práce
U.S. post Cold war presidential addresses – war legitimisation, jus ad bellum and call to arms
Thesis Proposal by Ondřej Kopečný
2019
1. Introduction
The United States have been undisputably the most prominent military actor in past 30 years on a global scale, and thanks to its democratic character also a prime source of information and research on collusion of public and military, of abstract influencing and narrative building, which translates into real, impactful activity.
United States emerged from the Cold war as the only one, and it still is up until today considered a hegemonic power, even though the tides of balance are fast shifting towards multipolarity. The nation i salso considered to be carrying a beacon of western liberal tradition, which values above all ideas of peace and freedom. In stark contrast to this image, the United States have gottten involved militarily in more than 10 separate conflicts since 1989, more than any other nation in this period. In the thesis, I am going to explore the ways, how American presidencies justify this military involvement to the American public.
I am going to provide an excursion in methods of persuasion through speech acts, which might explain, why a nation, whose members by majority refuse war as something negative, wholeheartedly embrace America’s military involvement far abroad. It matters to understand, how ideas, which lead to destructive actions are being formulated and imposed on the public in what seems to be a top-down scheme. Only upon understanding of these methods, a society can start building up immunity to military adventurism, be it in the U. S. or in any other democratic country.

2. Research questions and hypotheses
The core questions, I will be finding answers to during the work are as follows:
RQ1: To what extent do American presidencies operate the frame of just war theory in war-legitimating addresses?
RQ2: What imagery do the U.S. presidents use in their „call to arms“ addresses?
RQ3: How did the use of imageries in call-to-arms addresses develop between 1989 and 2011?
RQ4: How does partisanship reflect on presidential justification of war?
The thesis will analyse war-related presidential addresses, contracted into the post Cold war era, when the new international order was taking shape. The presidencies will be constrained to the ones of two Republican, that is G. H. Bush and G. W. Bush, and two Democrat president, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. The choice of actors, I hope, will serve as an equalizer, and as such allow for proportionate examination of narratives in the U. S. partisan setting, which I will address in one of my hypotheses, which are numerically related to their respective research questions (i.e. RQ1 with H1 etc.):
Hypothesis 1. American presidencies use just war theory framing consistently and it is a bearing justifying frame.
Theoretically, much debate on legitimate warfare revolves around the Just war theory. It is a doctrined developd by philosophers and war theorists, e.g. Grotious, Kant (Crawford, 2003), which addresses the essential questions: what is a justifiable reason for organized violence? And what modes of violence are justifiable? The theory introduces normative and ethical element to the debate of war as an opposition to realism, which ignores the role of morality in international politics. (Crawdord, 2003:6)
In other words, it explores the ideas of jus ad bellum, and jus in bello. For this thesis, the first paradigm, the lawful war, is more important, as I am mostly going to analyse speeches, which introduce the idea of lawful conflict to the audience. In the thesis, I am not going to judge whether the wars themselves are just, instead I am going to focus on the presidential reasoning and narrative development over time. Thus, I will focus on the following cathegories: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) proper authority, that it enters into war (4) as a last resort (5) with a reasonable probability of success, and that (6) it uses means proportional to the ends (Mosley 2009; Orend 2005).
The importance of framing the war as just stems from the conflict between Western liberal imagination, which deems war as wrong and frequent use of military force by the United States. (Butler 2012: 71) Administrations need to sell the war to the American public (Taylor 2003:6) In the eyes of the public, war affirmative decisions need to be legitimate, to which presidencies respond by forging a shared understanding of the necessity of respective war by adhering to the just war framing. (Butler 2012: 2-3) The framing also increases the likelihood of garnering international support for war endeavor. (Lordane 2010: 191-192) To presidencies, convincing the public the war is legitimate is a key determinant in successfully reaching policy objectives related to a respective war. (Clausewitz 2007)

Hypothesis 2. In call-to-arms addresses, American presidencies use every linguistic resource available to legitimize war.
Since justifying and legitimating war in the eyes of the public is central to gathering public support for war, presidents would use any method to convince the citizenry of the necessity of such war. (Lordan 2010: 2) Public support for war is then paramount for the government's ability to wage war since it minimizes possible resistance to the endeavor, but also rationalizes sacrifices in terms of human lives and resources. (Boussios, Cole 2010: 209; Clausewitz 2007) In speech acts legitimating war, rhetors would, therefore, resort to polarizing themes and figures: invoke fear, incite intra-group rancor, use manipulative proximizing analogies or demonize the enemy.

Hypothesis 3. The use of imageries by American presidencies transformed post 9/11.
President‘s agenda setting can be defined as signaling and these signals have numerous functions. Apart from ones like deterrence or threat, the most obvious one is to rally support for a cause. (Light: 1991 2-3), The primary source for such signals in my case would be presidential speeches. Light (2003) writes, that these speeches provide the best opportunity to influence the audience, as the president holds power over „location, subject and audience, and as such serve as a forum to voice important policy objectives.“ (Light 2003:3)
Analysts assume, that this has been especially crucial for the „Rally period“ post 9/11 (Scott Shane NYT, 2005). The narrative G. W. Bush constructed was compared to the great narratives of World War 2 and Vietnam war (Hodges, 2013).
The narrative G. W. Bush constructed after 9/11 was compared to the great narratives of World War 2 and Vietnam war (Hodges 2013). After the attacks, the rhetorical emphasis was put on American victimhood and sacrifice. Apart from that, the use of value binaries became more frequent. The United States was portrayed as a force of good, civilization and liberty fighting against evil, barbarism and obscure medieval beliefs of the enemy. (Esch 2010: 373-375) Through polarizing rhetorical figures, like invoking the Us against Them dichotomy, presidencies attempt to garner support for war. (Oddo 2011) After 9/11, fear generating imageries would become more prominent, playing on social vulnerabilities and omnipresence of terrorist threat. (Chomsky 2001) More dramatic and apocalyptic themes would be introduced in war rhetoric, in order to force the public to rally behind the leadership and justify high material and human costs of incoming wars. (Pratkanis, Aronson 2001: 85-88)

Hypothesis 4: Speeches and their framing reflect partisanship – democratic presidents accentuate different symbolics, than republican ones.
The partisan bias of the voters is directly influenced not just by media, but also by informational reality, which is presidential addresses co-create. We could thus assume, that reciprocally, that presidential PR teams would reflect the fact even in Foreign policy addresses, as the electoral campaign is either permanent, or always near. (Barabas, Jerit: 2010). This, of course, includes addresses, which deal with American military involvement abroad.

3. Methodology
I am going to use modes of qualitative content analysis, while employing single human-based data processing – it will be me, who is going to perform the analysis, without the aid of automation or mechanisation.
I will analyze a number of selected presidential speeches, which are targeting the issues of American foreign military involvement. The addresses will serve me as the core data, and to acces the data, I will be using the Public Papers of the Presidents database, the Miller Center transcripts as well as other resources (e.g. PAmericanRhetoric.com). The speeches I will analyze will consist of the following:
1) George H. W. Bush: Address to the Nation Announcing United States Military Action in Panama December 20, 1989
2) George H. W. Bush: Address to the Nation Announcing Allied Military Action in the Persian Gulf January 16, 1991
3) William J. Clinton: Address to the Nation on Haiti September 15, 1994
4) William J. Clinton: President’s Statement on Iraq December 16, 1998
5) William J. Clinton: The President’s Statement on Kosovo March 24, 1999
6) George W. Bush: Address to the Nation on Operations in Afghanistan October 7, 2001
7) George W. Bush: Address to the Nation on Military Operations in Iraq March 19, 2003.
8) Barack H. Obama: Remarks by the President on the Situation in Libya March 11, 2011

These addressess are all the relevant presidential call-to-arms speeches, fulfilling the following criteria: they are speeches relatable to direct intentional military involvement of the U. S., have been addressing the public, are in the closest time-line proximity to initiation of hostilities.
In the addresses named above, I am going to focus on imagery the orators employ, how they (un)intentionally construct the „us-them“ dichotomy, but mainly I will focus on the ways of war effort legitimization. Upon qualitatively analyzing the speeches, I am going to aim to put them in a comparative perspective, while also introducing a timeline for sake of forming a scale of constitutive development. Only this way one can notice and potentially evaluate the changes.
Upon reviewing the speeches, To do that, i need to identify the audience – is it domestic audience, or the foreign audience, and is there any distinction in case of the United states? I will qualitatively analyze the speeches, put them in comparative perspective. I will laso introduce a timeline for sake of forming a scale of development, and to be able to evaluate the changes.
Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce
U.S. post Cold war presidential addresses – war legitimisation, jus ad bellum and call to arms
Thesis Proposal by Ondřej Kopečný
2019
1. Introduction
The United States have been undisputably the most prominent military actor in past 30 years on a global scale, and thanks to its democratic character also a prime source of information and research on collusion of public and military, of abstract influencing and narrative building, which translates into real, impactful activity.
United States emerged from the Cold war as the only one, and it still is up until today considered a hegemonic power, even though the tides of balance are fast shifting towards multipolarity. The nation i salso considered to be carrying a beacon of western liberal tradition, which values above all ideas of peace and freedom. In stark contrast to this image, the United States have gottten involved militarily in more than 10 separate conflicts since 1989, more than any other nation in this period. In the thesis, I am going to explore the ways, how American presidencies justify this military involvement to the American public.
I am going to provide an excursion in methods of persuasion through speech acts, which might explain, why a nation, whose members by majority refuse war as something negative, wholeheartedly embrace America’s military involvement far abroad. It matters to understand, how ideas, which lead to destructive actions are being formulated and imposed on the public in what seems to be a top-down scheme. Only upon understanding of these methods, a society can start building up immunity to military adventurism, be it in the U. S. or in any other democratic country.

2. Research questions and hypotheses
The core questions, I will be finding answers to during the work are as follows:
RQ1: To what extent do American presidencies operate the frame of just war theory in war-legitimating addresses?
RQ2: What imagery do the U.S. presidents use in their „call to arms“ addresses?
RQ3: How did the use of imageries in call-to-arms addresses develop between 1989 and 2011?
RQ4: How does partisanship reflect on presidential justification of war?
The thesis will analyse war-related presidential addresses, contracted into the post Cold war era, when the new international order was taking shape. The presidencies will be constrained to the ones of two Republican, that is G. H. Bush and G. W. Bush, and two Democrat president, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. The choice of actors, I hope, will serve as an equalizer, and as such allow for proportionate examination of narratives in the U. S. partisan setting, which I will address in one of my hypotheses, which are numerically related to their respective research questions (i.e. RQ1 with H1 etc.):
Hypothesis 1. American presidencies use just war theory framing consistently and it is a bearing justifying frame.
Theoretically, much debate on legitimate warfare revolves around the Just war theory. It is a doctrined developd by philosophers and war theorists, e.g. Grotious, Kant (Crawford, 2003), which addresses the essential questions: what is a justifiable reason for organized violence? And what modes of violence are justifiable? The theory introduces normative and ethical element to the debate of war as an opposition to realism, which ignores the role of morality in international politics. (Crawdord, 2003:6)
In other words, it explores the ideas of jus ad bellum, and jus in bello. For this thesis, the first paradigm, the lawful war, is more important, as I am mostly going to analyse speeches, which introduce the idea of lawful conflict to the audience. In the thesis, I am not going to judge whether the wars themselves are just, instead I am going to focus on the presidential reasoning and narrative development over time. Thus, I will focus on the following cathegories: (1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) proper authority, that it enters into war (4) as a last resort (5) with a reasonable probability of success, and that (6) it uses means proportional to the ends (Mosley 2009; Orend 2005).
The importance of framing the war as just stems from the conflict between Western liberal imagination, which deems war as wrong and frequent use of military force by the United States. (Butler 2012: 71) Administrations need to sell the war to the American public (Taylor 2003:6) In the eyes of the public, war affirmative decisions need to be legitimate, to which presidencies respond by forging a shared understanding of the necessity of respective war by adhering to the just war framing. (Butler 2012: 2-3) The framing also increases the likelihood of garnering international support for war endeavor. (Lordane 2010: 191-192) To presidencies, convincing the public the war is legitimate is a key determinant in successfully reaching policy objectives related to a respective war. (Clausewitz 2007)

Hypothesis 2. In call-to-arms addresses, American presidencies use every linguistic resource available to legitimize war.
Since justifying and legitimating war in the eyes of the public is central to gathering public support for war, presidents would use any method to convince the citizenry of the necessity of such war. (Lordan 2010: 2) Public support for war is then paramount for the government's ability to wage war since it minimizes possible resistance to the endeavor, but also rationalizes sacrifices in terms of human lives and resources. (Boussios, Cole 2010: 209; Clausewitz 2007) In speech acts legitimating war, rhetors would, therefore, resort to polarizing themes and figures: invoke fear, incite intra-group rancor, use manipulative proximizing analogies or demonize the enemy.

Hypothesis 3. The use of imageries by American presidencies transformed post 9/11.
President‘s agenda setting can be defined as signaling and these signals have numerous functions. Apart from ones like deterrence or threat, the most obvious one is to rally support for a cause. (Light: 1991 2-3), The primary source for such signals in my case would be presidential speeches. Light (2003) writes, that these speeches provide the best opportunity to influence the audience, as the president holds power over „location, subject and audience, and as such serve as a forum to voice important policy objectives.“ (Light 2003:3)
Analysts assume, that this has been especially crucial for the „Rally period“ post 9/11 (Scott Shane NYT, 2005). The narrative G. W. Bush constructed was compared to the great narratives of World War 2 and Vietnam war (Hodges, 2013).
The narrative G. W. Bush constructed after 9/11 was compared to the great narratives of World War 2 and Vietnam war (Hodges 2013). After the attacks, the rhetorical emphasis was put on American victimhood and sacrifice. Apart from that, the use of value binaries became more frequent. The United States was portrayed as a force of good, civilization and liberty fighting against evil, barbarism and obscure medieval beliefs of the enemy. (Esch 2010: 373-375) Through polarizing rhetorical figures, like invoking the Us against Them dichotomy, presidencies attempt to garner support for war. (Oddo 2011) After 9/11, fear generating imageries would become more prominent, playing on social vulnerabilities and omnipresence of terrorist threat. (Chomsky 2001) More dramatic and apocalyptic themes would be introduced in war rhetoric, in order to force the public to rally behind the leadership and justify high material and human costs of incoming wars. (Pratkanis, Aronson 2001: 85-88)

Hypothesis 4: Speeches and their framing reflect partisanship – democratic presidents accentuate different symbolics, than republican ones.
The partisan bias of the voters is directly influenced not just by media, but also by informational reality, which is presidential addresses co-create. We could thus assume, that reciprocally, that presidential PR teams would reflect the fact even in Foreign policy addresses, as the electoral campaign is either permanent, or always near. (Barabas, Jerit: 2010). This, of course, includes addresses, which deal with American military involvement abroad.

3. Methodology
I am going to use modes of qualitative content analysis, while employing single human-based data processing – it will be me, who is going to perform the analysis, without the aid of automation or mechanisation.
I will analyze a number of selected presidential speeches, which are targeting the issues of American foreign military involvement. The addresses will serve me as the core data, and to acces the data, I will be using the Public Papers of the Presidents database, the Miller Center transcripts as well as other resources (e.g. PAmericanRhetoric.com). The speeches I will analyze will consist of the following:
1) George H. W. Bush: Address to the Nation Announcing United States Military Action in Panama December 20, 1989
2) George H. W. Bush: Address to the Nation Announcing Allied Military Action in the Persian Gulf January 16, 1991
3) William J. Clinton: Address to the Nation on Haiti September 15, 1994
4) William J. Clinton: President’s Statement on Iraq December 16, 1998
5) William J. Clinton: The President’s Statement on Kosovo March 24, 1999
6) George W. Bush: Address to the Nation on Operations in Afghanistan October 7, 2001
7) George W. Bush: Address to the Nation on Military Operations in Iraq March 19, 2003.
8) Barack H. Obama: Remarks by the President on the Situation in Libya March 11, 2011

These addressess are all the relevant presidential call-to-arms speeches, fulfilling the following criteria: they are speeches relatable to direct intentional military involvement of the U. S., have been addressing the public, are in the closest time-line proximity to initiation of hostilities.
In the addresses named above, I am going to focus on imagery the orators employ, how they (un)intentionally construct the „us-them“ dichotomy, but mainly I will focus on the ways of war effort legitimization. Upon qualitatively analyzing the speeches, I am going to aim to put them in a comparative perspective, while also introducing a timeline for sake of forming a scale of constitutive development. Only this way one can notice and potentially evaluate the changes.
Upon reviewing the speeches, To do that, i need to identify the audience – is it domestic audience, or the foreign audience, and is there any distinction in case of the United states? I will qualitatively analyze the speeches, put them in comparative perspective. I will laso introduce a timeline for sake of forming a scale of development, and to be able to evaluate the changes.
 
Univerzita Karlova | Informační systém UK