A Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of Obama and Trump’s Speeches on Afghan Policy

Abstract

This research analyses through critical discourse analysis the persuasive strategies used in the potential discourse of two American Presidents one Democrat and one Republican showing how different and sometimes opposite persuasive strategies are employed to continue the war in Afghanistan. Political ideologies, including American exceptionalism and other discourse patterns revealing power roles, and hegemonic international relations are revealed through discursive patterns employing pronouns, voice, nominalization, word choices, and metaphors. Obama’s laid-back Approach with an appeal to the greater good showcasing American exceptionalism carried the same Afghan policy that Trump's aggressive and nationalist approach did. Fairclough’s and Van Dijk CDA approaches unveil the political agendas hiding among the speeches also highlighting the significance of the CDA method in the analysis of ideology and power imbalance and stressing that the problem of power usage accountability remains actual on the international level. The research also advocates the exploration of the speech acts towards a narrower range of power and the utilization of more kinds of analyses on a greater selection of speeches for a better understanding of the multifaceted connection between language, power, and international relations.