The War on Terror was ideologically framed as a civilizational clash

Evidence

The “clash of civilizations” rhetoric therefore became dominant in the aftermath of 9/11 and was the ideological basis for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well domestic attacks on Muslims and Arabs. For a while it appeared that the neocons were unstoppable—but they overplayed their hand. During its first term, the Bush administration built a “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq, rejecting criticisms from allies it derogatorily labeled “old Europe.” The war on Iraq, however, did not go the way the neocons wanted it to. Instead of greeting US forces as liberators, the Iraqi people resisted and rejected US hegemony. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Bernard Lewis supplied the clash of civilizations thesis to American foreign policy — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 213; The clash-of-civilizations paradigm serves to prolong dominance — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 233; Clash of civilizations framing located terrorism’s cause within Islam itself — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 266 (+27 more)

Related

• The War on Terror was a globalized crusade recruiting nations for domestic political gain (similarity 0.92)
• Juxtaposing contending ideologies lets thrillers move beyond war-on-terror binaries. (similarity 0.91)
• Orientalism supplied the pre-existing tropes that the War on Terror redeployed against Muslims (similarity 0.90)
• Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks (similarity 0.89)
• Bush’s war declaration framed the enemy as Islamic and civilizational. (similarity 0.89)
• Grand civilizational rubrics invent false collective identities that enable deadly conflicts (similarity 0.88)
• The clash of civilizations narrative is a constructed frame, not a given fact (similarity 0.88)
• The Kite Runner’s binary oppositions calcify an America-versus-Afghanistan divide (similarity 0.87)
• Even realist think tanks opposed the clash of civilizations narrative because al-Qaeda weaponized it. (similarity 0.86)
• The clash-of-civilizations paradigm serves to prolong dominance (similarity 0.85)
• Bush’s ‘crusade’ rhetoric revived medieval holy war framing against Islam (similarity 0.83)
• Clash-of-civilizations ideology animated the Trump administration’s core policies (similarity 0.83)
• Huntington’s clash-of-civilizations thesis came to frame the entire War on Terror. (similarity 0.83)
• The War on Terror was deliberately marketed globally from its start (similarity 0.83)
• Revolutionary rhetoric can mask active counterrevolutionary alliances (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks #corroborates (0.80) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421
• Orientalism supplied the pre-existing tropes that the War on Terror redeployed against Muslims #expands (0.75)
• The War on Terror metastasized into a global network of state crusades against Muslims #expands (0.60)
• The War on Terror was a globalized crusade recruiting nations for domestic political gain #qualifies (0.50)