Content analysis reveals how William J. Clinton's rhetoric on the enemy influenced military decisions, highlighting differences in language between airstrikes and ground troop commitments.
This article investigates the rhetoric of the enemy in former President William J. Clinton’s justifications for the use of force. It examines the links between two themes from the perspective of David Zarefsky’s persuasive definitions. The former President’s responses to international conflicts demonstrate that the enemy drives presidential military decisions. Clinton’s rhetoric shows that the descriptions of the enemy differ between presidential announcements of airstrikes and presidential statements of commitment of USA ground troops to the fight overseas. Content analysis of Clinton’s speeches regarding the use of force in Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Kosovo demonstrates these claims and indicates the role of language in the former President’s effort to lead the American public on the use of force in post-Cold War foreign policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marta Kobylska (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: