Strategic Narratives of War: Fear of Entrapment and Abandonment During Protracted Conflict

The end of the Cold War has precipitated an increasingly prominent role for scholarship on communication that affects the conduct of international relations, and in particular, with the importance of communication in IR. Some scholars have been concerned with the instrumental use of communication and/or rhetoric to legitimize policy (Roselle, 2006) or to mobilize domestic publics (Brown, 2005). Others are concerned with the (re)construction of identity claims in international relations (Hopf, 2005). This paper focuses on strategic narratives and alliance relationships. During protracted conflict, political leaders face numerous challenges associated with political communication. One serious challenge involves maintaining alliances. Narratives are important in this process as they set out the story of why a state is involved in a conflict, who is with the state and against the state, and how the conflict will be resolved (Antoniades, Miskimmon and O’Loughlin, 2010). Narratives serve as the bridge between images of other states and foreign policy behavior (Skonieczny, 2009). This paper focuses specifically on how allies are depicted in strategic narratives during limited war. Previous research shows that alliances are relationships that can be affected by interactions at the international and domestic levels. This paper accepts the literature’s implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption that communication is central to the maintenance of alliances and suggests that strategic narratives play a central role in certain patterned ways. Specifically the paper analyzes US strategic narratives about allies with particular focus on the United Kingdom and the government of Afghanistan and addresses two sets of questions: 1. How are broader narratives about alliances formed? To answer this question, the cases of US alliance with the United Kingdom and US alliance with Afghanistan are analyzed to assess the role of elite press, other media and blogs to highlight the dynamics of alliance construction in a new media environment. In particular the focus is on the construction of fear of abandonment and fear of entrapment – central concepts associated with the study of alliances. The construction of the fear of UK abandonment during the British 2010 election is one case. The construction of the fear of entrapment by an Afghan government identified as supporting corruption in 2009-2010 serves as the second case. This analysis shows how the new media environment allows for non-US sources and non-governmental sources (including blogs) to affect the construction of communication about alliances. 2. What factors affect differences in political leaders’ strategic narratives about allies? Or does the same leader use different narratives in response to different external events? To answer this question, the strategic narratives of the Obama Administration are studied in the cases described above. The study finds that there are differences in strategic narratives related to events that are associated with particular kinds of fears but only under certain conditions. Constructed fears of abandonment lead to strategic narratives that emphasize the strength and history of the alliance and joint goals or interests. Constructed fears of entrapment lead to strategic narratives characterized by movement away from allies, but not when allies are considered unrestrainable. More generally, leadership narratives are structured by underlying narratives about US foreign policy behavior and alliance structure. The cases highlight the difficulties in incorporating allies or partners into the prominent great power narratives of war, especially in an age of new media.