This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: McIntosh, C. (2022). A ‘continuing, imminent’ threat: The temporal frameworks enabling the US war on terrorism. International Relations, 36(4), 568-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221128196
Author’s Abstract
“For nearly two decades, the United States has chosen to narrate its response to terrorism through what Judith Butler refers to as the ‘frame of war’. Despite this, victory in that country’s longest war remains largely unimaginable. In some ways this is a problem of time – it is not that victory or an end to the conflict is literally unimaginable, it’s that from our political present, an end appears radically discontinuous. This article builds on recent work using temporality and the political present as a lens and conceptual framework to better understand how temporal assumptions and frames shape the practice of war and political violence. In this article, I show how time and timing play a significant role in justifying the violence of the war on terrorism and in making it intelligible as war. I examine the past three administrations and focus on three areas – the borders of wartime, temporal continuity, and the vision of a post-war future – to show important differences in administrative approaches. To more concretely understand the practice of political violence going forward, attention to the temporal dynamics of politics must be front and center, particularly one possessing ambivalent frames. Doing so reveals the implications these dynamics have for the conduct and permissibility of violence.”
Main Findings
The author asks: How have the temporal dynamics of politics, particularly since the “War on Terror” campaign, enabled state-sanctioned violence to be normalized and to persist?
- Unlike war, which has traditionally been understood to have a starting point and an end, counterterrorism operations (such as those involved in the so-called the “War on Terror”) embody a paradox that is both “continuing” (necessitating constant surveillance) and “imminent” (necessitating urgent action)—creating perpetual, self-justifying violence with no clear endpoint.
- The normalization of state-sanctioned violence through counterterrorism efforts has blurred the lines between “wartime” and “peacetime,” where war and violence are not seen as an exception but as an ongoing condition and the expected state behavior, akin to “addressing crime or collecting taxes.”
- The U.S.’s “War on Terror” and related counterterrorism operations have weakened U.S. credibility in international diplomacy and undermined any of its good-faith efforts to be taken seriously, as the U.S. has a reputation for upholding contradictory policies (i.e., regularly carrying out drone strikes while simultaneously advocating for “peace”).
- Different U.S. administrations will continue turning to violence and military action as their default, reflexive approach to security threats as long as the temporal logics and frames that uphold state-sanctioned violence go unchallenged.
|
Frame of war |
This frame positions war as a temporary gap in normal political time tolerated in pursuit of whatever end fighting, winning, and concluding the war seeks to achieve.
Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war. New York, NY: Verso. |
Informing Practice
Key Insight: The U.S. government’s framing of counterterrorism efforts as a necessary and continuous function of the state is detrimental not only to the groups and people(s) it targets but also to the population it claims to be safeguarding—creating a persistent state of global insecurity and even degrading domestic freedoms.
The logic of violence that is prevalent within U.S. foreign policy is rather unsurprising given the dehumanization and violence that were foundational to the creation of the nation—from the erasure of “savage” natives to the enslavement of Africans and their descendants. Equally tragic is the fact that no true nationwide reckoning has occurred, nor has there been consensus on that history. Even so, the present-day reality characterized by porousness between U.S. “wartime” and “peacetime” can be best traced back to the U.S. government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, when the “War on Terror” campaign officially began—and has since resulted in the (in)direct murder of at least 4.5-4.7 million people and counting, predominantly in the Middle East. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was signed by then President George W. Bush has since provided any active U.S. president with the authorization to use military force without the approval of Congress—the branch of government with the constitutional authority to declare war. The “War on Terror” has allowed for U.S. presidents to downplay any “war-like” endeavors (such as the drone strike assassination of Iran’s intelligence commander, Qasem Soleimani, which the UN deemed unlawful), while being able to sell the illusion that the U.S. is not at war—and, better yet, that it is even reducing its military presence around the world, with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan serving as an example.
The current state of affairs requires action from both policymakers and civil society. Policymakers, at the bare minimum, must ensure that The War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to consult with Congress before military use, extends to all counterterrorism efforts. This is to limit the executive branch’s power and ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place. While this does not get to the root of the grave injustice here—namely, that state powers can deem one life worthier than another and have the capacity to inflict mass violence on global populations— putting pressure on and influencing elected representatives is essential to responsible decision-making about war and peace in any functioning democracy.
Additionally, civil society should always interrogate the language, frames, and narratives state officials employ in shaping domestic and foreign policies. Critically exposing oft-concealed elitist agendas—which routinely come at the expense of the wider population(s) and their freedom—would safeguard, empower, and uplift working-class and historically marginalized peoples. A good example of this sort of critique would be to scrutinize the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism”— how they have and have not been used, towards whom, by whom, and when. Can acts of systemic violence, such as the historical and ongoing policing of black and brown bodies, be acts of terror, too? The U.S. government, through the decades-long and continuing “War on Terror,” has used the term “terrorist” to dehumanize targeted populations and desensitize its own populace to the mass violence inflicted in its name—essentially greenlighting, through paralysis and passivity, imperial agendas of mass violence and suppression. These very same tools and tactics that are deployed abroad will eventually impede one’s own domestic freedoms, irrespective of creed or color. The “imperial boomerang,” as coined by Aimé Césaire, always comes home. The recent unlawful ICE arrest of Mahmoud Khalil—a U.S. green card holder—over his involvement in demonstrations calling for the liberation of Palestine is a perfect example of this encroaching degradation of domestic freedoms. While Khalil’s arrest is a direct affront to his First Amendment rights, he was detained under the pretense of being a threat to “national security” due to his “support for terrorist organizations.” The temporal logics that McIntosh writes about can be observed here in Khalil’s case, as the state must remain ever vigilant of the presumed “continuing and persisting threat(s) of terrorism”, both at home and abroad— creating a self-justifying cycle of violence and repression. This all begs the further questions: How is Khalil a threat? To whom and why? And whose interests are threatened by his activities?
As existential challenges like climate change demand attention and cooperation among diverse state and non-state actors at the global level, the “war on terrorism” that drives (or “colonizes,” as McIntosh puts it) much of U.S. foreign policy is not only severely outdated and brutal in nature but also detrimental to the trust-building, civility, and mutuality needed for any meaningful global environmental cooperation. In addition, due to its sheer scale—with more than 800 military bases across more than 90 different countries—the U.S. military remains one of the prime contributors to global environmental pollution and degradation. For the survival of present and future generations across the globe, perhaps the best thing the U.S. can do is to interrogate its reliance on violence as a tool of influence and conflict resolution, reimagining its security as something beyond bloodshed. [AZ]
Recommended Reading and Watching
Cesaire, A. (2000). Discourse on colonialism. Monthly Review Press.
El-Kurd, M. (2025). Perfect victims: And the politics of appeal. Haymarket Books.
Erakat, N. (2025, February 5). The Boomerang Comes Back. Boston Review. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-boomerang-comes-back/
Narea, N. (2025, March 11). The arrest of a pro-Palestinian immigrant should worry every American. Vox. Retrieved March 14, 2025, from https://www.vox.com/politics/403454/mahmoud-khalil-palestinian-student-columbia-trump
Savell, S. (2023, May 15). How death outlives war: The reverberating impact of the post-9/11 wars on human health.. The Costs of War. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/IndirectDeaths
The Chris Hedges YouTube Channel. (2025, March 14). ‘Cowardice of Kin’ — The State of the Muslim World (w/ Farah El-Sharif). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnzkRrF7Zlw
Vine, D. (2021). The United States of war: A global history of America’s endless conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State. University of California Press.
Organizations
Muslim Counterpublics Lab: https://www.muslimcounterpublicslab.org/
The Costs of War Project, Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
World Beyond War: https://worldbeyondwar.org/
Keywords: counterterrorism, terrorism, temporal, war, political violence, War on Terror, War Powers Act, The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
