Fighting Wars to End Wars : A Critical Discourse Analysis of George H.W. Bush’s justification for U.S. Intervention

Abstract: Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach that studies the relationship between power, language, ideology, and social structures in the various forms of discourse.  Fairclough’s three-dimensional model was employed as the foundation and van Dijk’s ideological square as an assist to deepen the analytical focus on the speeches held by George H. W Bush addressing Somalia and Kuwait. The size of conflict and period differ, this study sees the relevance of comparing the two speeches since they were given by the same person during his period as presidents of the United States and Commander in Chief. The results have shown how Bush uses language to lay arguments for U.S. military action in the out-group nations. By employing concepts such as national self-glorification, empathy, lexicalization, victimization, and polarization: He lay the grounds for the U.S. interventions through language. The results show that representing the United States in a positive light and the out-groups in a negative light e.g. as threat leads to the justification for U.S. intervention but also exposes the underlying power structures and inequality of power.