On October 7th 2001, American and British forces initiated an aerial assault against suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan. Initially known as ‘Operation Infinite Justice’, it was rapidly pointed out that the choice of name could be construed as ‘offensive to Muslims (for whom, we were told, only Allah can administer infinite justice).’ (link, p. 118)
While the ‘Infinite Justice’ appellation held, it created a discursive framework in which American counter-offensive was narrated as a ‘crusade on behalf of “our” Christian God’s moral absolutes.’ (ibid) Looking closer, Ramanazi highlights the fact that, as ‘justice implies an equivalence – of crime and punishment in retributive justice, injury and redress in compensatory justice – no form of justice can in fact be “infinite”’ (ibid, p. 119).
Those responsible defended their decision, claiming it was based in US military convention. Historically, the United States had used a single theme for each region in which was engaged in military conflict. The “infinite” qualifier pre-dated September 11 by three years, originating in ‘Operation Infinite Reach’; a 1998 air offensive against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. A military official explained that the choice of “infinite” was intended to give “the impression there was no sanctuary for the terrorists” (link).
Nevertheless, public opinion won out, with the operation rapidly retitled as ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’; a choice intended – in the words of Donald Rumsfeld - to highlight the fact that “this is not a quick fix… It’ll take years, I suspect” (link).
