To define the War on Terror, I decided to use an infographic. According to Wikipedia, infographics are “visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present information quickly and clearly” and with the power to “improve cognition by utilizing graphics to enhance the human visual system’s ability to see patterns and trends.” The Piktochart website allowed me to present the mixed media I felt could most wholly define the War on Terror, statistics, images, charts, blurbs, lists, quotes and a video, without creating a haphazard feel. The reason the text requires these varied mediums is that the term it seeks to define is complex, requiring a multi-faceted approach, and all parts must be viewed together as some undercut others. The background of the infographic is black to mirror the darkness of the topic and much of the text is red to represent the patriotism underlining the campaign against terror.

Statistics and a graph begin the infographic because they provide an easily-digestible entry point into the topic. The map of global incidences of terror and the number of American and international deaths demonstrate the scope of terror. Both details are important leading up to the inception of the War on Terror because the map shows the degree to which terror is a global phenomenon, and the body count represents the highest cost of terrorism. The source of the statistics and the graph are non-partisan groups with a focus on providing unbiased data to the public. The number of deaths is in a typewriter-like font because I felt it made the figures, which I consider to be particularly important in that human casualties are what lead to the War on Terror, stand out. Statistics are also used in the graphs under the headings “The Cost” and “The Controversy.” The monetary cost and the mixed opinions of the American public concerning the WoT were represented through graphs because quantitative data is the most effective and specific way to express these ideas. This data, too, comes from respected data-aggregating organizations, including the well-known Gallup pollster. I included the money spent combatting terrorism to show the extreme level of resources the United States invested in the War on Terror. There is a noticeable spike in spending after 2001, marking the beginning of the War on Terror. As the cost is represented by numerical values, it is most appropriately communicated by some sort of chart. Again, the monetary cost was obtained by a respected think tank and thus has credibility.

Images were crucial to the definitional text. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The first image shows the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. This is an iconic image that holds much meaning for the American people. On that day, a symbol of our country’s power was destroyed. The second image is of President Bush, because he was the catalyzing figure. This particular image of him was taken during the speech in which he declared the beginning of the WoT. His facial expression conveys a sense of grave seriousness. The officials standing behind him also give off serious airs while demonstrating their approval of his swift call to action by applauding. I felt placing the images side by side was appropriate given the direct correlation between what each depicts. The next image is a fake propaganda poster, in which Bush peers through a tank periscope, meant to convey that the WoT had become an indiscriminate crusade against Muslims. It would have been difficult and less effective to convey this idea in text. The ideas behind using the cartoon and photo placed on either side of the video of one of Obama’s speeches is the same.

Another mode of expression used was symbols. In the section on the objectives of Bush’s WoT, icons are used to express the main goals set forth by his administration and to give structure to the “War” component of the War on Terror. These goals were published by the Bush administration itself and made publicly available. I found that the simplicity of the icons conveyed the essence of each goal well. I also used symbols in the block on government implementation. These ideas concerning the immorality of the government’s actions in fighting the WoT came from a website that collected and pieced together information from well-established news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Even more so in this block, the starkness of the symbols conveys the gravity of the violations of the rights of U.S. citizens committed by the government during the WoT.

Even though the definitional text is not meant to include many words, I opened with a short written explanation of The War on Terror because the term encompasses military action at home and abroad, a social symbol, a rhetorical campaign and a large cast of actors and targets. With so many moving pieces, I felt it was best to provide a short written roadmap. Text captions appear throughout the infographic. Although photos, symbols and graphs and statistics convey much, it sometimes remains necessary to clarify exactly what the viewer should take away from them. Especially with the the symbols, written descriptions were necessary because they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I represented the eight terrorism plots that were foiled by the actions of those acting to advance the War on Terror using text because it was the most straightforward way to do so. Each plot is placed around a central shield icon, a symbol representing protection and security. Representing these foiled plots demonstrated some degree of success, which should be considered as a meaningful part of the entire WoT. The rhetoric block is almost exclusively text because listing words used in the media by politicians and other visible figures to describe both Americans and terrorists during the WoT is a great way to demonstrate how one was idealized while the other was demonized. This block addresses a more nuanced aspect of the term: its appeal to pathos. Americans and terrorists became brands. Americans, faultless and heroic, and terrorists, evil and inhuman. These brands were used to fuel the fire under the War on Terror and provided justification for many actions. The fake propaganda poster is also illustrative of the use of pathos in the appeal for support of the War on Terror.

The only video used was of a speech Obama gave declaring the end of the WoT. He explains that America cannot move forward if engaged in perpetual war. America will, however, continue to systematically fight terrorist organizations. A video of Obama espousing this idea conveys more than would a text quote. Hearing his voice and seeing his poised and level-headed demeanor give his words credibility and weight.

Quotes are used in the final two blocks. One is provided above the video of the Obama speech to accent and support it, rather than serve as the main source of his word. The definitional text ends with a single quote in large font placed on a stark background. This created a dramatic effect, echoing and enforcing the gravity of James Madison’s words, which I believe represent the most important take-away from my definitional text: that the War on Terror culminated in several breaches of the rights of American citizens, steep costs in terms of lives and dollars and a dehumanization of terrorists that is against the character of our nation.

By including several media in my definitional text, the complexity of the text came to mirror the complexity of the definition. This allowed me to to address the many parts of the War on Terror without seeming repetitive in design. I was also able to treat each facet of the definition separately, expressing each in the media that best suited it. In this way, each dimension of the War on Terror gets its due diligence.