On September 20, 2001, Georges W Bush’s addressed the citizens and congress of the United States of America and told them they had been put on notice. They may be the world’s most powerful country but they weren’t immune to attack and that their people had reason to be afraid. It was a speech that did little to allay the fears and concerns of the people. The terrorists who had attacked on September 11 had installed fear and now the government was going to ensure that that level of fear remained. For the fear of terrorisms allows for it to be useful as a propaganda and control device.

The challenge for the propagandist is to “inject” their ideas into the minds of the target population. The challenge is therefore to overcome the audience that thinks critically. As Rampton and Stauber point out,”an audience that thinks critically and is prepared to challenge you message becomes a problem that must be overcome” (2003, p 135). Fortunately for terrorists and governments alike one of the easiest ways to overcome objections to their actions is through the creation of a climate of fear and distrust. This process is aided by the media who benefit in the ratings and help in promoting a climate of fear that manage to keep audiences watching. A public that is afraid and untrusting of others, results in them being more easily manipulated and accepting of the influence of others.

As the late Nazi Reich Marshall Herman Goering quoted by Rampton and Stauber points out that the purpose of any propaganda campaign is to overcome resistance from the public directed at the government or terrorists ideology “but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country” (2003, p135)

Now that the public exists in a climate of fear, governments are able to reign in civil liberties and those that protest are attacked for their lack of patriotism. Any controversial act is defended by the linking it to being in the best interest of national security. Proof of this can be demonstrated by the outcomes of the enacted USA Patriot Act. Enacted only 45 days after September 11, 2001, the legislation was sold to the public on the perceived intention of targeting terrorists and making the United States safer from terrorist attack. Riding a wave of nationalism and fear of future terrorist attacks, the Act was intended to unite the nation and see an amalgamation of national intelligence agencies and law enforcement.

Critics of the Act were denounced as unpatriotic and as such un-American. It also creates a climate of intolerance and groups looking to blame Law enforcement now under the act could now legally spy on the citizens of their country. As William’s points out, this type of measure “highlights the distinction between punishing what has already occurred and preventing what might happen in the future” (2002, p. 340). Agencies that previously were responsible for enforcing the law now were able to manipulate the law to their own means. As such the concept of innocent until proven guilty under the law has been reversed.

A number of personal freedoms previously protected by United States law have bee lost under the Patriot Act. Under the act law enforcement and government agencies are able to gather personal information such as medical records, taxation records etc, without the need for a warrant or even criminal suspicion. This information can be obtained through clandestine searches of an individual’s home or business without indefinite notification. Also the definition of domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act can now potentially include the simple act of political protest.

As a result the United States government now spies on its own citizens and assault their individual rights through programs like ‘Terrorism Information Awareness”, a centralized computer database that compile information from government and public sources. All under the banner of a campaign for freedom and protection from those who they’ve been told wish to harm them.

Similarly in Australia, intelligence services have been given the power to detain and interrogate individuals for up a week, without charge, persons sixteen and over for suspicion of knowledge or involvement of terrorist activity. Furthermore laws of sedition and control orders have limited the freedom of speech and the freedom of movement

Naturally the government wants its public to believe its actions are in their best interest. It not only endeavours to win the “heart and minds” of those it if fighting against but also of it own people. Instead of just defeating the enemy the new goal is to defeat them psychologically through the creation of a climate of constant fear. Sighting the work of political theorist Thomas Hobbes who wrote in his 1651 work Leviathan, Bethke Elshtain) wrote that, “If we live in constant fear of violent death we are likely to seek guarantees to prevent such” (2003, p 47). As a result governments are able to justify their actions through the promotion of fear in their rhetoric.

By creating a climate in which its citizen envisions anarchy and dread and a perceived threat of random violence their lies an ability to control. The ruling powers that be can exploit this fear knowing that if it fails in so called right to protect the people it will be perceived in dereliction of it duty. As a result they can justify an act of war. This however does not give it the right to abuse the authority given to it and seek unquestioned obedience and acceptance.

Under the perceived notion that the war is just in that it’s a war being fought under the right intention supposedly. For the United Stated their actions were justified in their eyes as they sort the punishment of the wrongdoers and the prevention of those who sought to harm and kill innocent civilian currently and in the future. But the both sides see themselves as being in the same position. They portray themselves through propaganda as being on the “good” side.
US President George W Bush used the term “crusade” in his post 9/11 speech, stating that the he and the power of the United States government would take action against the so called “axis of evil”. The government later realised the association this actually had with historical campaigns of Christian forces from the 11th to the 13th century that had the aim of expelling Muslims from the lands the occupied. Instead the government came up with “Operation Enduring Freedom” to describe it campaign of “liberation” of Afghanistan.

Moving forward the United States and its coalition of the allied countries began a long campaign involving Iraq. History will show that the world was lead into a War in Iraq on the basis of misinformation. The world was repeatedly told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that their leader Saddam Hussein was willing to use them. Documents and evidence supporting this claim were reportedly fabricated to implicate Iraq in plans to possess nuclear weapons. These fabrications were used to convince the public and policy makers alike of the need for military action.

The use of propaganda and the misrepresentation of the truth have been carried out in a threat to the freedom of truth and expression, which those that are responsible for are supposedly trying to protect. As Bethke Elshtain wrote that a climate of fear can lead to harsh measures, “The condition of fearfulness leads to severe isolation as the desire to protect one-self and one’s family becomes overwhelming (2003, p 47).

When the truth was exposed about Iraq and its apparent lack of weapons of mass destruction it was linked to the war on terror. The country was now presented as a breeding ground for terrorists. The war on terror would continue, as would the use of propaganda to influence the hearts and minds of the enemy and the public. Historically, however there has been little to no history of co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda leading up to the invasion.
As a result of manipulating the truth to justify their actions, the United States possibly created the situation that lead to terrorists being in Iraq and attacking United States interest. Rampton and Stauber stated “The propaganda approach becomes more attractive during wartime, when each side becomes preoccupied with manipulating and coercing the thinking of their enemy or domestic” (2003, p 134).

The United States government endeavoured to garner support for their actions through the continued use of propaganda. To show that what they were doing was right and their actions were justified. However the propagandist generally doesn’t hold a high regard for the intelligence of their targeted audience. With support for the war in Iraq diminishing the United States government needed something or someone to distract the public from the war that they created under false pretences. More and more people had begun to think critically about the situation and challenge the message that they were being told. In response the United States government sought to manipulate people at a primal level, appealing to them with emotional symbolism.

Quartermaster Corps Private First Class Jessica Dawn Lynch became an icon of the United States war effort. Portrayed as the all-American girl who became a heroine when the supply convoy she was with took a wrong turn and was ambushed by Iraqi military. Nine US soldiers were killed in the ensuing battle. Initial reports released by the military claimed that PFC Lynch had stab and bullet wounds and suggestions that she had also been sexually assaulted. Prior to her capture PFC Lynch, according to the Pentagon had fought heroically, engaging the enemy with her weapon before succumbing to her injuries. The injured and then unconscious PFC Lynch was taken to a local Iraqi hospital, in which she would stay for eight days until members of the United States military rescued her. The rescue operation was filmed by the military and the highly edited and some argued scripted film and transcript were provided to the world media to distribute to a public who loved the supposed hero story. For terrorists and governments alike the use of the media to gain attention and support for their respective causes balances nicely with media outlets drive for ratings and commercial success.

However after the initial release of information, accusations arose that the rescue mission to extract PFC Lynch and the bodies of her fellow soldiers carried out by elite Special Forces operatives was a staged media event. What the public had been told and what had actually occurred were two very different scenarios. Filmed with night vision camera the footage shows something akin to a Hollywood action movie, with the military meeting no enemy resistance. Iraqi forces had reportedly fled in the days prior to the rescue. In her testimony to the United State Congress, Lynch said she never fired her weapon during the ambush that leads to her capture. Instead her weapon had jammed and furthermore that she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed. She awoke to find that she was in Iraqi hospital and being provided medical care for her injuries. Her real injuries instead of those first advised consisted of a broken arm and thigh and a dislocated ankle which were found to be consistent with a car accident.

Lynch would later state, that the US government used her as a propaganda tool. In an address the US congress, she stated that, "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things. She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing." I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember."

Then there is the story of Patrick Daniel Tillman, the professional American football player who gave up fame and fortune to enlist in the US army. Tillman and his brother enlisted out of call of national duty after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Tillman would become the United States poster boy for the War on Terror. After serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tillman was reportedly killed by hostile fire in combat. Championed by the United States government and the media as a soldier who died defending the so called freedoms of the country, it would be a month after his death that the reports about he died were announced to be inaccurate. Army medical examiners confirmed growing suspicions amongst the media and public when they found that the three bullet holes in Tillman’s forehead were fired by a United State issued M16 machine gun. A subsequent military criminal investigation concluded that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire.

Subsequent investigation by some members of the media revealed that US Army investigators were aware of the cause and circumstances of Tillman’s death within days of the initial incident, yet covered it up to protect the reputation of the US Military. Tillman was posthumously promoted and award the Purple Heart medal and a Silver Star Medal for valor in the face of the enemy. Tillman’s family was not informed of the real circumstance of death until weeks after his memorial service. Tillman’s father, Patrick Tillman Sr. has voiced his opinion on the military covered up, “After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the investigation; they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a hand-basket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy.”

Under the banner of a war on terror, Bush was able to topple two governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, eased restraints and empowered intelligence and law enforcement agencies to almost draconian levels. All of which have been done out of the perceived threat and the propaganda associated with the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Furthermore in calling countries to account by including in the so called ‘axis of evil’, the United States government has increased the amount of fear perceived by people by stating that they have more and more enemies. The rhetoric of ‘your either with us or against us” does little to foster a democratic society. One in which people and countries should be able to freely express opposition without the fear or reprisal. The media, turning patriotism into an emotive response elicited from the people, then further fuels this message.

Finally as a result of all this, the people were left asking, “why do they hate us”, projecting the blame onto an external entity. Instead perhaps they need to understand that one man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Terrorists are only there as a result of a perceived injustice they seek to change. Furthermore the fear that exists for such groups is compounded by the propaganda that comes from the so called good and bad sides.

With democracy supposedly built upon the basis that people are able rationally self govern themself. Given the necessary information in which to critical analyse and determine the truth they inturn should be able to act on own best interests. However for the propagandist the aim is the opposite. By keeping people in a state of misinformation, living in fear they are able to be manipulated and controlled. The goal once was supposedly to win the “hearts and minds” of the people to create a world of democracy and freedom from authoritarian regimes that seek to control the will of the people. Instead it appears we are headed for what we fear most, a life ruled by fear itself.