The type of discourse politicians employ can be used strategically to legitimise military interventions to the public. Within strategic discourse, gendering can take place in order to increase the...Show moreThe type of discourse politicians employ can be used strategically to legitimise military interventions to the public. Within strategic discourse, gendering can take place in order to increase the sense of legitimacy to the public, as was done by Bush during the War on Terror in Afghanistan. This thesis aims to identify gendered constructions for the nation (the US), the enemy (ISIL) and the intervention within the legitimisation of the military intervention against ISIL. The thesis gives insights on the types of legitimisation strategies, and how gendering is used for the aim of legitimisation. By conducting a Critical and Theoretical Discourse Analysis of several speeches of president Obama and president Trump, the author finds that there are several gendered identities that are constructed in order to justify the intervention against ISIL. Both presidents feminise the enemy to legitimise the intervention. Whereas Obama uses soft-masculinity to construct the intervention and the nation, Trump uses hyper-masculinity to construct these identities. The author finds that there is a consistent use of emotional discourse, producing gendered constructions in order to legitimise the war against ISIL, therefore making gendering a constant throughout the legitimisation of the War on Terror.Show less
