Let us delve into some of the glaring mistakes incurred by the author. To start with, the central thesis that the War on Terrorism is “a political discourse constructed through carefully chosen language” is overstated (Jackson, 69). What Jackson fails to mention is the overwhelming public support achieved by the Bush Administration in the lead up to the war. So, the author’s assertion that it is a conspiratorial effort on part of the ultra-conservative section of the American polity is too broad a generalization which is difficult to prove. Secondly, the justifications for military intervention as a suitable response to the terror attacks of September 2001 were portrayed as outright false. To an extent this stance is true, given the subsequent findings about WMD’s. The fact that the then Secretary of State Colin Powell got away with impunity after presenting to the United Nations Assembly “a highly concocted illustration” (Jackson, 36) of the presence of WMD’s in Iraq deserves condemnation. And Richard Jackson does not show any hesitation in cutting Colin Powell’s legacy to size (who started his Secretary-ship with a lot of promise and with his reputation intact).
Where ever there is mention of the War on Terror, it is inevitably given in quotation marks. In his defence, Jackson argues that “Quotation marks around the designation ‘war on terrorism’ have been employed throughout the book to indicate its special and artificial quality; I did not want to contribute to its normalisation by leaving it undistinguished in the text” (Jackson 7). But to the contrary it creates an effect of overstatement of its “special and artificial quality”, which can be annoying for sophisticated readers. In a similar vein, Jackson’s references to the attacks on September the 11th are also dramatic. For instance, the author argues that “Such practices [referring to it as September 11 or 9-11] are neither natural or without consequences; rather, the effect is to erase the history and context of the events and turn their representation into a cultural-political icon where the meaning of the date becomes both assumed and open to manipulation” (Jackson 7) But in effect, what Jackson is doing is to compensate for the “indoctrinating” effects of the official war rhetoric by using his own self-proclaimed “natural and historically factual” choice of words. Again, as is the previous anomaly, such literary devices are totally un-necessary.
On a more positive note, although the book is perceived as anti-American within the American intelligentsia, it accurately represents the outside world’s perception of America. The War on Terror and its sub-plot in Iraq have drawn the most vociferous of condemnations and popular protests that the modern world had ever seen. The events of 9/11 were followed by calamities in the United Kingdom and Spain. The latter terror attacks were no less brutal when compared to the former, yet the reactions to these catastrophes in the respective parts of the world has been disproportionate. While the anger and indignation expressed by the American public representatives is quite vocal well known, the reactions of their British and Spanish counterparts has been rather subdued – if not in rhetoric, surely in actions. Jackson alludes to a salient point when he tries to explain this discrepancy. He says that “terror” is a part of life for much of the world, including the advanced nations of Britain and Spain, both having their own enemies to civil society. But for Americans, a one-off event such as 9/11 had set off such melodrama and popular outcry that the American populace is surely out of touch with the realities of the outside world. In this way, Jackson elucidates the “insular” nature of the American society, which makes it difficult for their public representatives to understand and cooperate with alien leaders of state.