‘Gutsy’ Decisions and Passive Processes

Abstract

The Obama administration has positioned itself against the militarized discourse of the Bush-era Global War on Terror (GWOT) by articulating a ‘return to the rule of law’. And yet, the figure of the US decision-maker remains as masculinized and militarily-oriented as ever. I demonstrate this seeming incongruity through an analysis of: first, the decision to render the Christmas Day (would-be) bomber of 2009 to the criminal justice system, a decision for which Obama was labelled ‘weak’ (hence feminine) on terrorism; and second, the killing of Osama bin Laden by the US Navy SEALs special operations team, a decision which reaffirmed Obama's warrior credentials, since it proved that he was the ‘strong’ (hence masculine) commander-in-chief. Both cases demonstrate that the hegemony of the masculine ‘warrior decision-maker’ remains privileged and facilitates the re-emergence of the GWOT ‘war machine’, despite the Obama administration's commitment to change.