LEGITIMIZING THE ILLEGITIMATE: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE AND POWER IN "OPERATION ABSOLUTE RESOLVE"

Abstract

On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted "Operation Absolute Resolve," a military intervention in Venezuela resulting in President Nicolás Maduro's capture and approximately 80 deaths. While international law experts condemned this as unlawful aggression, the U.S. administration framed it as legitimate "law enforcement." This study employs Critical Discourse Analysis to examine how linguistic strategies legitimize actions violating international law. Using Fairclough's three-dimensional framework, this qualitative research analyzes official statements from Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Department of Justice documents. Findings reveal that through strategic naming, systematic euphemism, and enemy construction, the U.S. government transforms military invasion into routine policing discourse. The analysis identifies six primary legitimation strategies: strategic naming ("Absolute Resolve"), euphemistic framing ("law enforcement operation"), criminalization ("narco-terrorist"), constitutional authorization, moral evaluation, and historical mythopoesis. This study concludes that hegemonic powers weaponize language to override international law, setting dangerous precedents for global sovereignty. The research contributes to understanding how discourse manufactures consent for illegal state violence.