Has the Global War on Terror Been Waged Mostly Through Discourse and Images, as Securitization Scholars Argue?

Abstract This article examines whether the Global War on Terror (GWOT) has been waged primarily through discourse and imagery, as securitization scholars argue. Drawing on the Copenhagen School and constructivist perspectives, it analyzes the interplay of political speech, media narratives, and iconic images in shaping public perceptions and legitimizing extraordinary security practices. Case studies include U.S. discourse under Presidents Bush and Trump, the symbolism of Guantánamo Bay, and British political rhetoric during the Iraq War. The paper highlights how images such as the collapse of the Twin Towers, media coverage of detainees, and protest iconography amplified securitization narratives. It argues that discourse and imagery were not peripheral but central to the conduct of the GWOT, serving as mechanisms of persuasion, fear, and justification. The article contributes to debates in security studies by demonstrating how visual and discursive strategies function as key instruments of securitization, raising ethical and political concerns about the manipulation of public sentiment in the name of international security.