Page 1 of 24
RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN JUSTIFYING MILITARY ACTIONS: A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DEMOCRACIES AND AUTOCRACIES
Introduction
Rhetoric's role in shaping public perception of military actions
Some of the factors that seem to affect people‟s perception of Military operations include
the following: The choice of words that is used, the manner of describing some actions that are
carried out or are going to be conducted by military services, may positively or negatively affect
people‟s attitude towards such actions. For instance associating a specific attack with the name
„preventive warfare‟, which gives it the appearance of a defensive action while cataloging the
same attack as an „initial assault‟which has somewhat an offending nature. Therefore, presenting
reporters as accompanying the forces and illustrating soldiers helping to restore schools and
hospitals can transform an occupation into glamorous, while presenting dead civilians and
destruction caused by bombings can turn people‟s perception of war into a negative one. The
masses will also not question military attempts at risky engagements should it is said that it is
fighting a very dangerous enemy, even if the threat of this enemy is perhaps fabricated or
exaggerated. This is why presidents and prime ministers sometimes use grandiloquent language
of war when the actual picture is different in order to get more funds for the military or for the
use of troops in another country. Thus, to decide in favor or against a particular military
intervention, a voter is forced to decipher the messages that the leaders of a political camp and
mass media attempt to deliver to try and set out the Lobelian terms and conditions of force, and
then contrast these with facts that did exist in regard to the necessity of the particular intervention
and potential ramifications of applying it. Meteor is a far better working of the passions rather
Page 2 of 24
than teaching and therefore the public will needs to be informed so that it does not be led astray
into an unjust or an unwise conventional war by some persuasive trumpet call.
Contrasting approaches between democratic and autocratic regimes
Democratic and autocratic systems of governance have one of the most distinguishable
differences in the methodologies of administration. Democracies are spearheaded on such
principles as representation, active participation of the citizens, and guarantee of civil and
political rights. They organize and compete for frequent elections in which more than one party
vies for an opportunity to be elected, and the citizen votes for their preferred leaders. Executive
power is balanced by other branches of power that were established according to the principles
of democracy such as legislatures, courts, and the free press. Of course, democracies tend to be
less efficient at times, thanks to the diffusion of power, but this open debate and constant
returned to voters are even more effective in the long run. In contrast, autocratic regimes have
centralized power where it lies with the ruler or a small group of people. The autocrats take away
such rights and liberties of their people in order to ensure that they retain absolute power.
Autocratic leaders can ignore the public opinion and demonstrate limited accountability because
they have unrestricted power over their subjects. This allows them to quickly shift to pursuing
policy objectives and, compared to the civil service, this might create the impression of a faster
and more efficient decision-making process. But the rigid autocratic systems will go more and
more in a reactive manner, corrupt, repressive, as leaders struggle to silence the opposition and
those who question their authority. It means that if leadership is not willing to share power and
let the people debate freely, then the leadership mistakes are not as likely to get noticed and
corrected. And so, while autocracies appear efficient initially owing to the organized,
hierarchical decision-making process, they are generally less effective in the long run as
Page 3 of 24
compared to democratic systems of governance in terms of adaptability, the ability to respond to
challenges in a timely and effective manner and sustainability.
Impact of political systems on justification strategies
Citizens and their administrations are constantly operated under political systems and
beliefs regarding how leaders control the rationalizations of their conduct and polices in
societies. It is always assumed that in liberal democracies the government of the country is
expected to be an arena that mirrors the opinions of the people, on the other hand, it need to also
safeguard the rights of the minority. This makes leaders of democracy to resort to such principles
as representation, rights, enlightenments, and sovereignty in relation to the ‟will of the people‟
whenever they are executing major and contentious policies. For example, a leader in a
democratic country who wants to support a large-scale bill on infrastructure development would
likely justify their desire by appealing to favorable polls, how many people it can benefit
economically and socially, and so on. On the other hand, authoritarian systems focus on order,
national patriotism, and agenda of the leader or ruling party and not the citizen. These priorities
and ideals are most of the time abused by authoritarian leaders to explain actions and decisions
instead of saying that they are operating under popular opinion. Their reasons can collectively be
grouped into the security justification, enemies or aliens, need for order and orderliness, desire
for strength or power, and divine right of the king or ruling party. For example, an authoritarian
governance regime, which is intending to enforce an un-desirable policy may fabricate foreign
enemies or telling people that society will witness social unrest if the policy is not disseminated
or the public are ignorant of what is good for them. They may also limit freedom of speech in the
pretext of the conflict causing discord and neurosis in the society. Such justification strategies
are generally accompanied by pervasive propaganda and permitting or promoting the open
Page 4 of 24
debate. There is also a possibility of the strategies of justification depending on the ideology of
the regime and governing principles that a given regime supports such as a theocracy, or a
Marxist state, as well as other forms of governance that are bound by strict paradigms of the
governing ideology of the state. They opine that the policies and actions are rational in terms of
ideological postulates of rightness – historical mission, the call to obey rightful authority, desire
for millennium chimeras, or faith. It is in this regard that democracies are not likely to be as
biased as totalitarian or authoritarian governments because they are likely to be more flexible
whenever they argue their reasons for their policies within the best interest of the people and
opinions of these people. In any system or ideology, political leaders are constrained by the need
to make their actions reasonable, acceptable, and in the country‟s or everyone‟s best interests
rather than self-serving.
Framing the Threat: Narrative Construction
Democracies emphasizing imminent dangers to national security
When stressing the threats which are more imminent to the national security democracies
are faced with a very delicate compromise to undertake. While in one hand it is crucial to
increase the public awareness on threats because without this support it is hard to ensure
protective policies and to gather resources to address the weaknesses. But exaggerating risks is
also likely to increase people‟s concern unnecessarily, allow governments to expand their powers
in the name of protection, and in some cases, harm business or strain relations with other
countries. In the context of democracies, there are several cases where the need to focus on the
imminent danger led to the expansion of powers which were soon considered to be either not
required or rather detrimental. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s with his rants about the
communists in the government contributed to the practice of AIMs through causing a culture of
Page 5 of 24
paranoia and leading to violation of civil liberties. The George W. Bush administration was
particularly vociferous on the threat posed by the alleged Iraqi nuclear arsenal after 9/11, despite
the fact there was no clear evidence to back up these claims. The war that was being fought
created immense instability in the region shifting a lot of human and financial losses onto the
Americans. In both cases, the people of the two nations were whipped into a frenzy of insecurity,
used to justify aggressive policies even as the evidence was often flimsy to support the supposed
threats. However, reducing them to insignificance brings certain dangers as well. The wrong
policy of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler possibly encouraged more
aggression that led to the Second World War. He studied the Japanese threat and, like most
Americans before the attack on Pearl Harbor, was skeptical about the real danger posed to the
US naval forces. Democracies must therefore employ reasonable evaluations of risk that permits
for risk mitigation measures to be taken without compromising reasonable and rational
precautions against threats without compromising democratic liberalism. It is essential to focus
on specific factual threats, rather than using rhetoric‟s and politically motivated narratives.
Knowledge of the law and its limitations, as well as incorporation of checks and balances in
governmental system, is named as the most effective preventive measures. Democratic
governments must provide right context and frank assessments to put focus on real threats
without invoking false dangers or helping authoritarians.
Autocracies focusing on external threats to regime
The knowledge that actual or imaginary external threats are used by autocratic regimes as
a means of domination and rallying the population behind them is rather encouraging. These
autocrats direct their deserved ire towards their own country‟s population in order to have a
bird‟s eye view of the foes that are out of their countries, with an objective of mobilizing
Page 6 of 24
nationalism and presenting themselves as saviors of the nation. This also empowers them to
describe anyone who stands against it as an inconvenience which detracts the country‟s readiness
in to fight the external enemies. For instance, the North Korea government always poses Military
power to South Korea, a democratized state; the constant referencing of the United States as an
imminent foe. This leads to the formation of togetherness against the foes and the North Korean
leadership can appeal to nationalism and obedience as means of preserving the country.
Similarly, the current Russian leadership up to Putin has to some extent depicted NATO and
other western counties as patriarchal states that pose a threat to Russia‟s dominance. The new
government headed by Putin escalated aggression after taking control of the Crimean territory by
arresting people who advocated for change and suppression freedom of speech saying that they
were working for the detriment of Russia. Further on, the regime has been using the actual
escalation of the conflict within Ukraine as a justification for the prolonged and vengeful warfare
and the enlargement of NATO to its doorstep. Likewise, Bashar al-Assad continues to hold an
autocratic rule in Syria because it has been killing for a decade despite presenting the civil war as
between his Ba‟athist government and Sunni criminal gangs sponsored by foreign enemies.
Despite the evidence of having killed more Syrians than any other part, this external enemy
narrative helps justify the murders carried out by the Assad government.
Similarly, the Chinese CCP demands discipline and obedience within households through
stating that the American imperialism, Japan, Taiwan, some European countries or any other
democratic state is a menace to the establishing of China and thus would not allow their
interference. It is then easy to tag dissidents or ethnic minorities as being in assortment of the
enemy hence offering a reason for their suppression. Autocracies exist on the basis of the
emergence of external threats, and this may be exhaustion through external threats as mere has
Page 7 of 24
been or at least a figment of the autocrat‟s own mind as a means of demanding compliance. The
propaganda factories ensure that people consider these authoritarian rulers as their shield from
external threats hence providing covers for despots to enforce other measures of extremism such
as oppression of media, detention of political opposites among other measures that are seen fit in
the quest to protect the nation. This is always a usual practice in countries where there is an
authoritarian regime to make sure that the citizens target their anxieties and anger outwards and
not towards the leadership hence compliance.
Utilization of historical analogies in threat framing
Historical framing of threats can be an efficient way to present the perceived threat‟s
nature and thus mobilize public support, but might lead to oversimplification of the problem. In
an intelligent manner, when a new threat is compared to historical events, the viewers are likely
to understand the threat in question since they are familiar with the previous event. For instance,
framing the climate-change threats in terms of how it devalues what was at stake in World War
II can be noteworthy to many, because they seem to downplay present threats. However, not all
the audiences who will be reading or watching news have the same historical feelings or
connections. If the community only focuses on one perspective seeing the history, then those
with a different view or background will feel left out or ignored. Moreover, conclusions derived
from a sociopolitical history may not be as accurate as they should be due to lack of regard for
differences between past and the present. A comparison can be made between COVID-19 and
the 1918 flu Inasmuch as the two scenarios are nearly similar; there are significant disparities
between the modern society and the modern medicine as opposed to the early twentieth century
making the applicability of the earlier events a rather good reference frame. Altogether, the
application of historical parallels can be best governed by context and by the perception of the
Page 8 of 24
audience to whom the message is being delivered in terms of values and erudition. Recalling
frequently provides key implications about the antecedent and histronics that imbue the credo
with force, but seldom does a change align completely with the past minus significant and
contextual differences. Decision makers should therefore use historical analogy wisely in threat
framing by providing details on how current and past crises are different or similar, and how
differences in world views may influence the meaning of comparison. When used to drive the so-
called „history lesson‟ and to avoid reification or othering, the concept of historical metaphor
indeed returns an understanding of the pertinence of timely threats by connecting them in
meaningful ways with audiences‟ memories of past shared experiences or their remnants.
Though such comparisons might be all too easy and, once overstated or used gratuitously,
potentially misleading about the nature of current issues in their own right.
Appealing to Values: Moral Justifications
Democratic rhetoric highlighting human rights protection globally
The promotion and advocacy for the expansion of the human rights laws across the world
is usually a common theme of the democratic speeches. This kind of rhetoric asserts that out of
all the systems, democracy with the cover of exercising civil liberties and political rights is most
suitable when it comes to creation of human rights principles. The critics have remained
enlightened to the fact that there is a lot of hypocrisy in democracies when they are lobbying for
human rights in other countries while denying them back home. There is also doubt regarding the
true intentions of democracy and its utilization as an alibi for foreign policies seemingly
unrelated to human rights. People also believe that democracies constantly condemn
authoritarian governments for stifling freedom of speech and assembly, arbitrarily arresting and
detaining people, as well as impunity of security forces. Democracies such as the USA have also
Page 9 of 24
been criticized for being hypocritical in the promotion of human rights for the world as a whole
since they are still to solve internal problems like police brutality on African Americans, unfair
race relations in criminal justice systems, and infringement on privacy rights in the fight against
terrorism. It would seem that democracy uses its existing liberties to pressure other countries to
liberalize their systems, and thus get criticized for hypocrisy when it tramples on such supposed
principles at home, which has prompted some critics to assert that democracies compromise their
role as protectors of rights in the international community when they do not uphold the standards
they demand from other countries. Advocates maintain democratic systems remain the most
legal and structural safeguard against major violations of rights that occur freer and easier under
autocratic regimes. On the same note, democracies have supervisory institutions such as an
independent media, free and impartial judiciary and electoral systems capable of removing the
leaders into power to honor rights protection. While there may be discrepancies in compliance,
democratic constitutions and laws, have rights ideals. This is also true with hypocrisies as
identification of these vices act as triggers to reform such shortcomings. Therefore democracies
can still rightly advance that human rights promotion is a principle that remains good for foreign
policies despite internal fights. Rhetorical commitment sets the tone for how the promises are to
be achieved in a bid to improve rights consistency over the years.
Autocratic emphasis on national pride and sovereignty in regard to security matters
Totalitarian states may use patriotic appeals to justify measures for internal security and
political control as well as foreign policies that stress military might. In this way, the opposition
is depicted as treasonous, and external influence as violations of state sovereignty and thus
autocrats try to justify authoritarian actions and war. This enables them to widen the monitoring
and oppression initiatives against dissenting politicians by disguising them as campaigns against
Page 10 of 24
interference from other countries. It also gives the excuse for aggressive stances that escalate
conflicts in the name of preserving territory. More often than not, the appeals to patriotism and
supremacy of the nation‟s interests that the autocrat makes may be a cover for less noble
pursuits, such as personal glorification and greed, favoritism, and the abolition of any counter-
checks on the president. The anticolonial measure of sovereignty and nationalism forms the basis
for silencing real concerns about corruption and rights abuse. Security, rather than liberty,
prevails under the autocrat‟s reasoning, as the regime enjoys a license to operate. Strangely
enough, this „protection of the nation‟ involves the eradicating of the institutional framework and
social standards of a healthy political culture, as well as the well-being of the population. Thus,
the autocrat‟s selective use of nationalism to mobilize support behind enhancement of national
security undermines the very pillars on which national security rests: good governance, free
media, and respect for human rights. Such threats could be overemphasized so that attention is
shifted away from the internal vices occasioned by unbridled oligarchy and authoritarianism. An
insecure autocrat always perceives threats in his vicinity when the biggest threat most of the time
emanates from him due to his misconduct and refusal to embrace democratization. Patriotism
and references to breach of sovereignty turn into the dictators‟ bullets, not as the rational and
sophisticated means of executing the public interest.
Invoking ideological principles to justify military interventions
The rationale of ideological principles and values in relation to military invasions into
foreign nations can be described as a multi-faceted question. On one hand, values such as
democracy, protection of human rights or prevention of humanitarian crises and war may appear
very good purposes. For instance, military invasions clad in „peacekeeping‟ mantle with UN
endorsement purport to have a moral responsibility to defend the rights of the innocent from
Page 11 of 24
oppression or brutality. However, critics maintain that military interventions done in the pretext
of principles are inconsistent, self-serving and often cause more harm than good, or infringe on
sovereignty. For instance, great powers may use force against the violation of human rights in
certain areas but not do so against those violations by friendly governments. The interferences in
Libya and Iraq were partially justified due to moral concerns to spread democracy and support
human rights. But the consequences of both interferences resulted in the protracted political
turbulence, civil strifes, and fresh tyrannies, rather than the intended purpose of assisting the
subjects to gain emancipation and democracy. While they may require regime change for
humanitarian purposes, the lack of a clear policy on how to replace these regimes may create
more havoc resulting in the suffering of innocent people. And measures that lack the backing or
involvement of the targeted nation can be viewed as arrogant, Colonial and neo imperialist.
Therefore, it can be said that legal principles alone do not ensure just results. However, while
using ideological rhetoric can be helpful when seeking support from domestic and international
audiences, focusing on values can blind one to structural factors and politics that shape the actual
effects on civilian populations. No matter how noble the cause, the application of military force
means that people must die, so the rhetoric of ideas should be questioned. It is essential to dispel
the myths inherent in the use of principles to justify interventions and to distinguish between
pure good intentions and tangible capabilities of interventions, negative side effects, the
coherence of their application, and the recognition of state sovereignty and the ability of other
stakeholders. The logic of the civilian killing due to well-intentioned wars can be summed up
with the phrase „The shoemaker‟s children are naked.‟ It was also an attempt to promote
democracy, human rights and outsourced freedom by waging unilateral military actions, which in
most cases prove counterproductive.
Page 12 of 24
Information Control: Media Management Strategies
Democratic approach: embedded journalism and press briefings
The relations between the government of a democracy and the press are not perfect and
contain some orderase. As mentioned previously, there are several arguments that pinpoint the
constructive position of the press in society: people need information, and the press controls the
actions of rulers. Free speech and public leadership press conferences are democratic principles
as they allow the media to investigate without limitations. The government also has legitimate
interests in national security, operations that require some level of discretion in the dissemination
of information and intelligence. The balancing process is something that is continuous. Another
technique is when journalists are assigned to a military unit in a bid to access frontline coverage
of some of the wars. While this can be helpful in increasing the public‟s awareness it is criticized
as skewing towards an „over-emballing‟ of the military. Another democratic way is the
escalating practice of daily White House press briefing where administration spokespeople
directly engage with the media. No matter how noble these exchanges are, they can easily turn
into a mess of aggressive arguments. The Obama White House for example faced charges of
embracing message dominance rather than engagement and restricted access to information
whereas the Trump administration was accused of peddling fake news. It is evident that while
access and accountability hinge on good faith endeavors of the two institutions, they should
respect democracy. The assumption being that an electorate that is well informed is an electorate
that will be able to exercise its rights to free speech and expression even as politicians and
generals go about their business of fulfilling public policies in the public interest. Both are not
absolute and balance is not a constant and perfect one, but transcends in the context of change.
So long as the system permits light in government operations and encourages journalism that
Page 13 of 24
poses searching questions, and rejects dissent not as subversive but as unpatriotic, the practices
of embedded journalism and adversarial press briefings may be a sign of a properly functioning
democracy notwithstanding if the rhetoric on both sides can get overheated.
Autocratic method: state-controlled narrative and censorship
Totalitarian regimes go out of their way to control the information environment in which
people are placed, and to restrict the People‟s overall acquisition of information, as this is the
primary method through which they attempt to maintain the people‟s obedience and compliance.
This helps them consolidate and disseminate their ego on the democratic ideology and limit or
quell any chances of democratic ideas emerging. Thus, using the mechanisms of controlling the
access of information in the media, the internet, imprisonment of reporters and dissidents,
creation of fake news, autocrats do not allow their subjects receive political information
necessary in order to form reasonable opinions and understanding of the political processes. But
what the public receives is a reality wearing a mask where the regime and the leaders are
depicted and portrayed as nice and cultured where the restriction of rights in the name of security
or stability is accepted where nationalistic tendencies and unity against the external threats are
preached and where such facts as are considered threatening to the regime and its official
propaganda are excluded. The net outcome that is produced is formation of conformist culture
within the people who may not be so capable of challenging authority. Though, the censorship
can never be wholly useful in the modern society because there are always some citizens who
will do anything possible to acquire the prohibited information through the World Wide Web or
through the black market. On the other hand, censorship together with the surveillance and
suppression of any attempt at protest does allow autocratic states to regulate what information
the „ordinary person‟ can get access to. That is how this information control and manipulation
Page 14 of 24
help sustain autocracies in the long-term by masking governmental incompetence or the lack of
integrity, eradicating social issues and dissidence in society, and building the illusion of order
and legitimacy, even if it is an illusion created. Consequently, the autocratic regimes are capable
of achieving the major goal of managing the information flow and filtering the information
necessary for the formation of the consent or the passive obedience of most of the people.
However, as in any other kind of oppression, there is always some risk of such an action; passive
displeasure of the masses can quickly become an active uprising.
Social media utilization in shaping public opinion and security matters
Individuals have gotten much more involved with social networks because they are an
inseparable component of everyone‟s life where billions of users share information, news, ideas
and other things on these large networks daily. It has made communications tremendously rich,
but at the same time has introduced new actors of fake news and influence operations. Through
social media, three forms enhance the flow of narratives based on three variants; different
elements in a network accelerate the discursive formation in the network of the public sphere.
That it is possible to swiftly share ideas at a quick pace is equally useful to the generation of
positive ideas, and the generation and dissemination of news both positive and fake either
through the assistance of the social media algorithm or by the assistance of those who seek to
influence the masses. Political actors both at the state and non-state level have found out that
sometimes, narratives and social media platforms and interests are perfect instruments in pursuit
of political agendas and polarization. Suffice it to say that as of today, the sides of the
confrontation use social networks, and, in the opinion of the experts on security, the said
networks enable the waging of asymmetric warfare in the contemporary information
environment. For example, in the case of recent elections or Brexit, such as policy issues,
Page 15 of 24
information warfare using tools like social media was actively conducted by countries like
Russia. To this degree false ideas can explicate why right-wing domestic terrorist organizations
use social media in the recruitment and radicalization process. Misinformation has effects on the
online environment but the instances that such narratives are getting translated into politically
polarised protests and sometimes even violence make a bridge with security issues, which forces
the leaders of technology companies to state that their platforms and algorithms promote
extremism‟s distribution and, at the same time, raises questions about freedom of speech when it
comes to moderating content. The posts on social media are then utilized by the police to prevent
risks to physical security such as in the case of expected domestic terrorism; nevertheless, it also
presents a violation of the rights to privacy and political freedom. As a rule, the extension of any
kind of stories ranging from facts to fake news through the social networks affects public opinion
and political will, as well as security on a scale that was previously unimaginable. Managing the
complex coordination entails technology leaders, information security experts, policymakers,
social and policy scientists, legal and ethical theorists, and civil rights advocates to create a just
path.
International Legitimacy: Seeking Global Support
Democracies pursuing multilateral backing for military actions
Before going for an attack, democracies rely on their allies and multilateralism from the
international organization. This establishes their legal right to do so under international law,
enables them to share costs and risks and ensures they have more popular support at home.
Following Iraq‟s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the U.S sought to form a coalition of partners
particularly the Arab partners before launching Operation Desert Storm to oust Iraq. Obtaining
authorization from the United Nations Security Council and the Arab League provided the
Page 16 of 24
additional support. Other allies like the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia and Egypt also
committed troops and funds, which helped America cut its expenditure and loss of lives.
Domestically, Pres. President George H.W. Bush received strong congressional and voter
approval after achieving international cooperation. Democracies that operate outside the
multilateralism framework harm their reputation, mobilize internal detractors, and isolate
themselves from their supporters. However, the U.S invaded Iraq in 2003 with the then president
George W Bush. George W. Bush did not have support from the U.N and some important
Europeans and Arab countries such as France, Germany and Egypt. Bush coined it “coalition of
the willing,” but most of the allies interpreted it as unilateral America show without authority.
Hence, out of trillion and 4,500 combat deaths; the U.S bore the greater part of it all. At home
the authorities observed a decline in the popularity as the mission continued while abroad the
invasion had long-term negative impacts on relations with other countries. Their troubled legacy
also affected the later multilateral initiatives such as the effort against ISIS which most large
democracies do not make too many efforts to justify military operations through international
organizations both to quell internal voices and reduce their load on operations. There are always
special circumstances such as where urgent measures are required or where unity is not
attainable but overpowering the international community is not without political repercussions.
Supporters can deny funding, hinder access to their territories for basing or over-flight, and
impede other forms of security cooperation essential to democracies, such as intelligence
exchange and sales of weapons. Democracies take the raw power of a nation state coupled with
the requirement for a balance of power and seek the endorsement of the region and the
international community even in the use of brute force.
Autocracies leveraging bilateral alliances for legitimacy claims
Page 17 of 24
In as much as democracies are opposed to autocratic regimes, the latter may seek
acknowledgement in the international society and therefore cooperate with the democracies. This
kind of bilateral relationship allows autocrats to utilize credibility in their interaction with the
other relatively more liberal governments. At the same time, democracies enter such relations
hoping the normally authoritative partners would change their ways or open politically at some
point. A good example is the strengthening political, social and economic relationship of Saudi
Arabia and United State of America in the recent past. However, the successive US
administrations‟ continued insistence with the American strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia,
an absolute monarchy with one of the worst human rights records across the globe due to their
royal directive, as well as continued sponsorship of terrorist groups and dependence on the same
for the kingdom‟s production of energy that meets the needs of the United States. The Saudis
benefit from this relationship because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is on paper a significant
non-NATO ally of the United States which contributes towards the regime‟s claims that Saudi
Arabia is essentially a friend of the West in its heart. From the American viewpoint close
relations mean the management of concern in Middle East especially the stability of the oil-rich
Persian gulf and projection of mutual enemies like Iran. This dynamic establish that the pairing
of democracies with autocracies is very often done in the geopolitical and in the legitimization‟s
interest. Chinese leadership attempts to build a better relationship with the developing countries
by implementing such principal initiatives as the BRI. Beijing is able to get international profile
as a development financier of accommodation and development assistance and at the same time
attain the capacity to influence the recipient states. Particularly the constant refernce to
„partnership‟ and „interdependence‟ thus enshrines the role of reorienting the world to view
authoritarian, domineering China as the world‟s new hegemon worthy of the world‟s attention
Page 18 of 24
and resources. Here, the bilateral aspect also implies equality of power and understanding that
autocracies rarely get in the multilateral forums that are headed by the liberal democracies.
Rhetoric adaptation for domestic versus international audiences
There are basically two types of auditors that any speaker has to consider each time he or
she is preparing to give a speech or a presentation, and these are the domestic and international.
Domestic audiences are likely to be located in the same cultural realm, and there are higher
chances of deciphering culturally related issues such as current affaires, history, jokes and idioms
among others Domestic rhetoric would then contain the possibility to include aspects like using
an example from the local cultural practice, using a pun, assuming that the audience is informed.
Country audiences have their cultural stereotypes, language, political conditions, and information
prior to the message reception. Talking to these audiences, it is impossible to use an idiom and a
cultural metaphor for something, but to go for something that does not have any ambiguity and
could be understood by an average person, in any corner of the world. Not using intricate
grammar and long, heavy-semantic words also lowers the chance of misunderstanding and using
more context and explanation for things that are understandable to other people rather than that.
Other means like the use of drawings, use of the writing board, maps, models and graphic images
can also aid in passing over ideas that might be hard to explain due to language barriers.
Debriefing tone may need variation – giving references to self or using some words that may also
be considered positive by voters at home may be received with negative or peculiar views
overseas. A speaker should always ensure he or she does not lose the culture and values of his or
her nation, but at the same time, one should be careful not to utter such words that may disgust
the audience due to their culture. For instance, loudness, gesticulation, some directions and how
one positions his body, while reacting to something, is perceived differently in either, the Asian
Page 19 of 24
or the western community. In any case, there is some benefit in possessing an ethical structure to
speeches, even if the supporting evidence is not ideal, and the thinking behind them is logical.
However, when communicating with the citizens of different countries, it becomes mandatory to
speak English in a way that is as comprehensible as possible and, definitely, it is prohibited to
make references to idioms, metaphors, and other figures of speech that may be unfamiliar for
some of the participants of any meeting that could involve representatives from different parts of
the world. The strategy of advertising to everyone is useless to the domestic and the multi-
national viewers in particular. However, the best speakers understand this scenario and change
the ways of presenting their messages to the opposite extreme.
Post-Action Narrative: Justifying Ongoing Operations
Democratic focus on progress and exit strategies
Gained the Democratic party a basic power with regard to progressive change and the
demand to put into effect those measures which would inspire a better future for the
disadvantaged. Some of them are Black Lives Matter or any other racially motivated incidences,
women issues, gay and lesbian issues, immigration issues, healthcare issues, education and other
related issues. In spite of these differences, it can be assumed that democrats as a rule promote
the interference of a government within policy and programme spheres concerning the fight
against prejudice and injustice. However, there have been situations when Democrats have been
found to have given vague signals of retrenchment of such programs and entities. For example,
there has been concern on the years that affirmative action employment practices in college
admission should take before producing the intended impact. Democrats argue that some of the
GOP plans reduce funding and abandon humans‟ responsibilities; some Democrats‟ plans are
accused of growing bureaucracy and government interferences with Americans‟ lives and
Page 20 of 24
lacking timelines on how long the Democratic plans of the programs will be funded and
implemented until such plans are no longer useful because their policy objectives are meant to be
achieved. Some of the interlocutors state that the aims which the Democrats cherish are time-
intensive and intricate, meaning that it is rather difficult to speak about distinct strategies for
leaving during even long-term perspectives. This is also applicable in the foreign policy
complications such as the Democrats who advocated for interventionist military options with
humanitarian angles yet lacked appropriate uses for the military. The nation-building processes
in Afghanistan and Iraq, which could be referenced to as state-building missions would have
needed about one and a half to two decades or even more where the Democratic and the
Republican presidents were involved.
Democratic presidents Obama and Biden have tried to move the military operations even
more to the specific counter-terrorism actions rather than the voting reforms in the foreign
countries. Still, the further of withdrawals, and transitions from the EU, as well as the definition
of success in the international environment, remain questionable. Talking about the domestic
politics, one can still trace rather clear-consciousness as for how in the framework of Biden‟s
presidency some of those new social programs might be introduced into society and become the
permanent values in the further development of the society as the priorities, like the child tax
credit or subsidies to switch to the green energy. However, the administration has had some
hurdle from the fiscal conservatives; these are pressures that call for high precision on the
timelines to which the further hikes should be applied before falling back into the sunset clause.
When the Democrats proceed to the major investments in the sphere of the healthcare, education,
parental leave, affordable housing, etc. , and when the Democrat does not change the concept of
Page 21 of 24
making these changes significant across the generations – the key to the party‟s goal, as it was
mentioned, is to create fair opportunities for the people in America.
Autocratic emphasis on decisive victories and strength
Autocratic is a kind of leadership is characteristic for autocratic leaders who strive for
maintaining power and who insist on clear, winning actions. These shows of force, military and
political, are employed to cultivate a cult of personality and seek to portray the group as being
all-conquering. This enables them to cement their authority and suppress any opposition by
painting the uppervers as frail and unloyal. For instance, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong became
autocrats who applied industrialization and other fast-paced modernization programs as
manifestations of the regime‟s power, which encouraged extra-ordinary production goals that
were counterproductive to the realization of meaningful and sustainable development but served
to support exaggerated economic accomplishments. These production victories which the state
used in their propaganda helped them establish a narrative that they could do anything by the
sheer force of their will. Likewise, autocracies spend large amounts of their budgets on military
displays, new weapons, and a large army regardless of these harms for other sectors. This
enables them to saber rattle on the international scene and to reassure subject populations of the
force which their regime can bring to bear when punished. Such a call also gathers domestic
support for the war and suppresses resistance as anything against the war is considered as
treasonous. In the absence of war, autocracies employ the security, police and prison reforms
punitively to deter political opponents. The threat of violence also affects a common citizen and
makes them understand that it is dangerous to openly resist the regime and the only thing that
awaits them is imprisonment, exile or death. It makes grassroots resistance movements to stop
their attempts of fighting the system because they will be considered invincible. It has the effect
Page 22 of 24
of either making the citizens endorse the autocratic government or show no interest in political
matters at all due to hopelessness. The presentation of the clear cut victories and power
demonstrations enable autocrats to present themselves as all conquering, all powerful leaders
who achieve all that they set out to do, which fosters a sense of loyalty through the idea of
success and threats through the use of violence. It demoralizes both domestic and external
contesters who cannot stand a chance against such a well-entrenched regime with absolute power
and might. The focus on wins and power hence ensures authoritarianism sustains its grip.
Rhetorical shifts in response to military outcomes
As seen in political and military communication processes, actors modify their discursive
strategies in line with the outcomes of operations. If a military action is successful and aims have
been met, then that is what people will focus on and commend the soldiers for a good job done.
For instance, after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that within a short time brought down Saddam
Hussein‟s tyranny, the President of America George W. Bush made a speech on an aircraft
carrier with a „Mission Accomplished‟ written on a banner, implying that the major combats had
effectively been achieved. However, if a military action seems to have problems or a higher rate
of casualties than expected, the rhetoric from the leaders changes to one of determination and
being ready to face whatever comes their way. When the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody
fight with insurgents, Bush stopped drawing attention to the „Mission Accomplished‟ sign and
using the fight as a theme of his speeches where he assured the nation using the technique of
repeating that the US will remain steadfast and win the final victory, not pointing to the fact that
the fight was over. Other patterns of analysis include the manner in which leaders describe the
goals of a military intervention over time. While pursuing an invasion they might solely rely on
concepts such as the promotion of democracy or protection of their own interests. However, as
Page 23 of 24
soon as engaged in a long-lasting violent war with increasing number of casualties and
decreasing popularity among the population, the rhetoric quickly changes to concerns of
strategies for withdrawal and demobilization, rather than dreaming of remaking other societies.
This pattern was exhibited in the Vietnam War where Johnson mobilized the domino theory in
Southeast Asia for Americans to deepen its participation in the war only for Nixon to employ
Vietnamization and pulling out of Americans from a war that was unpopular among the
American citizens. In recent years Moscow has altered its stated aims in Ukraine from the speedy
demilitarization of Ukraine to gradual advances in the eastern Donbass. Leaders‟ direct manner
of speaking of losses and failure also tends to relate to existing military events as well. When the
news is good they mostly bring out the successful aspects while dampening the failure aspect.
But major mistakes can compel them into giving an outlook about failures in order to regain the
lost credibility as Russia recently did after the loss of the guided missile cruiser Moskva. Trends
may be observed as leaders switch rhetorical patterns in response to events on the battlefield
while trying to motivate supporters, preserve their support, and adapt to the evolving situation.
Conclusion
Some of the techniques employed in political speeches include the following: Essentially,
all these elements of speech can be argued as marking out the value system as well as the goals
and achievements of the political systems represented by these particular leaders. For instance,
while analyzing those countries, which have adopted the democracy, the leaders are known to
use more of the factual appeals with the aim of persuading the voters, to embrace their stand.
Nevertheless, authoritative systems do not rely on analytical argumentation and actual
substantiation as much because they are not answerable in the same manner. It is important to
embrace these differences because misinterpretations in intergovernmental relations can lead to
Page 24 of 24
diminishing of diplomacy and in some cases war. Making it possible to demonstrate how the
justification tactics of war changed in the conduct of modern conflicts. As these technologies
discharge more the conceivable chinks in official plot, the governments are beginning to
understand that they need to exert more effort to mobilize public support for war in other
countries. Unlike the previous speeches the messages are not as easily tied to legal/moral
quandaries, instead using the language of rallying and the perceived threat of „‟them‟ against
„‟us‟. ‟ But this drift towards manipulation may gradually corrode the very premises that
information technology was meant to enhance. The leaders could not mobilize citizens to make
sacrifices in the interests of future interventionist capacities because they are regarded as
untruthful when „selling‟ a war. Thus in realizing these disputed policies, the political parties
could result into even more clandestine and possibly even quasi-legal means in fulfilling such
agendas with minimum regard to public sentiments or political sympathy. The world, where
politics and all political processes interpenetrate, and international cooperation is necessary for
the solution of global problems of various natures, from climate change to pandemics, cannot
leave space for such a decline in the state level and interstate relations. One should warn
diplomats and citizens that all statements and all speeches addressed to the public and official
tribunals are made within the specific matrix of incentives and constraints characteristic of the
state. This contextual literacy leads to enhanced approach towards information processing, cross-
cultural communication and evaluation of leaders‟ behaviors. As a heuristics rule, the concept of
rhetorical strategy will remain to be used with reference to regime values depending on its
understanding for the institutionalization of competition to facilitate the existence of different
systems.
