The Consequences of Careless Rhetoric: President Trump’s announcement of al-Baghdadi’s death

Decorum has never been President Trump’s strong suit, yet all rhetorical caution was thrown to the wind as he announced a major U.S. counter-terrorism victory: the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the brutal and influential leader of the Islamic State (I.S.). The death of al-Baghdadi holds great political significance: the ultimate distraction from President Trump’s domestic and foreign policy woes and the destabilization of I.S. at the highest level. However, the President’s official announcement and the reactions it has elicited have demonstrated the consequences of his careless rhetoric.

In his official announcement, President Trump praised U.S. military and intelligence for bringing “the world’s number one terrorist leader to justice.” He thanked those who assisted him, praising Russia, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq’s cooperation, and briefly thanking the Syrian Kurds for their unspecified support. Anecdotes about the “beautiful” and “talented” dog injured in the operation tugged on American heartstrings as President Trump proclaimed the achievement of the “top national security priority” of his administration. As impeachment proceedings continue and international backlash for his decision to abandon the Kurds in Syria intensifies, President Trump seemed to have the ideal distraction, a perfect win — yet perfection proved elusive. 

The President made clear that the U.S. “had [their] own intel” and “got very little help” with the operation, gravely minimizing the largely Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces’ role in obtaining the necessary intelligence to locate al-Baghdadi. He proceeded to defend his decision to no longer protect the Kurds, stating that “it was much easier dealing with the Kurds after they went through three days of fighting,” while clearly outlining his interest in protecting the region’s oil. The final blow came as the President found himself caught up in his typical “fire and fury” style, graphically detailing al-Baghdadi’s final moments, claiming he was “whimpering and crying and screaming all the way.” Trump’s claims (which not even the U.S. officials behind the operation can confirm) described al-Baghdadi and his followers as “frightened puppies,” and characterized him as a “coward” who died “terrified of the American forces bearing down on him.” To President Trump, this announcement may have seemed an unequivocal show of U.S. strength. To many others, including I.S., it exposed U.S. hypocrisy and brutality.

Narratives created by Al-Qaeda and I.S. typically characterize the U.S. as hypocritical and brutal. In the eyes of I.S., rhetoric such as President Trump’s announcement of al-Baghdadi’s death confirms U.S. hypocrisy and barbarism. By abandoning the Kurds, minimizing their role in intelligence gathering, and publicly placing the value of oil above the value of Kurdish lives, President Trump depicts an America that disregards its allies the moment they are no longer useful, destroying U.S. credibility. Through describing al-Baghdadi’s death in a reckless and incendiary fashion, President Trump demonstrates once again that decency is not a concern. Al-Baghdadi by no means deserved a respectful eulogy; he was a ruthless killer, rapist, and torturer. However, Trump’s rhetoric plays right into the narratives perpetuated by I.S., cementing the idea that the U.S. government is a savage regime in the hearts and minds of I.S. supporters. Worse, by strengthening this narrative, Trump’s rhetoric may have the effect of fueling and abetting I.S. recruitment.

Upon confirming al-Baghdadi’s death and naming his successor, I.S. released a communiqué warning that “Americans would pay,” mirroring copious threats made across I.S. supporters’ social media accounts. Analysts have directly tied the “intense reaction” of the I.S. network to President Trump’s rhetoric in announcing al-Baghdadi’s death, feeding into the credibility of I.S.’s narrative. Through focusing on the obliteration of I.S.’s caliphate, Trump obscures the ideological power of the organization and their diffused yet pervasive and continued membership. His abandonment of the Kurds has also given I.S. a window of opportunity in northern Syria, as the Kurdish forces, key to suppressing I.S., are now occupied by concerns over their own survival. Additionally, al-Baghdadi maintains importance to I.S. even after his death. Osama bin Laden’s ideas saw a boost in popularity following his death and al-Baghdadi’s may well do the same. Al-Baghdadi’s death provides a “rallying cry” that could reinvigorate I.S. supporters worldwide following I.S.’s debilitating (though not paralyzing) territorial defeat. 

This is not to diminish the substantial impact of al-Baghdadi’s death on I.S. nor the justice in the demise of a mass killer, but to highlight the need for greater rhetorical responsibility in the handling of U.S. policy. President Trump’s messages, be they tweets or official statements, reverberate globally and can manifest as violence when interpreted by certain groups. While the notion that U.S. leadership must do better is by no means novel, it cannot be overstated, especially as the 2020 presidential election draws nearer. To put it far too simply, words matter — especially when espoused by the President of the United States.