Article published in:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 12:1 (2013) ► pp. 29–58

Evidencing international threat

Examining Iraq Survey Group’s post-invasion verification of Iraq’s WMD threat

| Western Illinois University
| University of California, Berkeley
| University of California, San Diego
By studying the discourse utilized by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) and its chief officers during 2003–2004, we show the methods by which U.S. government-appointed experts helped to affirm the existence of an Iraqi threat even in the absence of physical evidence for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles or active weapons programs found in Iraq during U.S. ground search. Their data collection and interpretation work illuminates the principle that the claims and calculations of international threat can be primarily constructed by language and discourse processes rather than by direct/concrete material referents. It also points to the need for institutions and a lay audience to apply a higher evidentiary threshold to ascertain the existence of an international threat.
Keywords: cognition and knowledge, risk and threat assessment, argumentation, Iraq war
Published online: 13 May 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.1.02cha
References
Cap, Piotr
(2008) Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. 2nd edition. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Axiological Aspects of Proximization.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2): 392–1407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Gordon C., and Hugh B. Mehan
2006 “Discourse in a Religious Mode: The Bush Administration’s Discourse in the War on Terrorism and Its Challenges.” Pragmatics 16 (1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Why We Must Attack Iraq: Bush’s Reasoning Practices and Argumentation System.” Discourse and Society 19 (4): 449–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926508089939. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul
(2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London, UK: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Juan
(2009) Engaging the Muslim World. Houndmills, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Elbaradei, Mohamed
(2011) The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
2011 “Practical Reasoning in Political Discourse: The UK Government’s Response to the Economic Crisis in the 2008. Pre-Budget Report.” Discourse and Society 22 (3): 243–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher
(ed.) (2011) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Adam
(2011) The “War on Terror” Narrative: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Judith
1989 “When Talk Isn’t Cheap.” American Ethnologist 16 (2): 248–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazar, Annita, and Michelle Lazar
2004 “The Discourse of the New World Order: ‘Out-Casting’ the Double Face of Threat.” Discourse and Society 15 (2–3): 223–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041018. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leudar, Ivan, Victoria Marsland, and Jiri Nekvapil
2004 “On Membership Categorization: ‘Us’, ‘Them’ and ‘Doing Violence’ in Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 15 (2–3): 243–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510382840. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leudar, Ivan, and Jiri Nekvapil
2011 “Practical Historians and Adversaries: 9/11 Revisited.” Discourse and Society 22 (1): 66–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, Anne Warfield
2002 “Editor’s Introduction.” In Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism, ed. By Harold Garfinkel, 1–64. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Schutz, Alfred, and Thomas Luckmann
(1973) The Structures of the Life-World: Volume 1. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E
. [1958]2003 The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst
, et al. (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A
(2008) Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Society in Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
2011 “Discourse, Knowledge, Power, and Politics: Towards Critical Epistemic Discourse Analysis.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by Christopher Hart, 27–64. Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, John, Ahmed Sahlane, and Ian Somerville
2012 “Argumentation and Fallacy in Newspaper: Op/Ed Coverage of the Prelude to the Invasion of Iraq.” Journal of Language and Politics 11 (1): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.11.1.01wil. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
(2009) The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Houndmills, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230233683Google Scholar