Dominance through Coercion: Strategic Rhetorical Balancing and the Tactics of Justification in Afghanistan and Libya

This article analyses British and American justifications for military intervention in the decade following 9/11. Taking Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011 as the main case studies, the article explores the ways in which political elites attempt to achieve policy dominance through rhetorical coercion, whereby potential opponents are left unable to formulate a socially sustainable rebuttal. Specifically, in these case studies, we explore the use of strategic rhetorical balancing, whereby secondary rationales for intervention are emphasised as part of a tactic of justification designed to secure doubters’ acquiescence by narrowing the discursive space in which an alternative counter-narrative could be successfully and sustainably formulated.