Chapter Six turns to the issue of state-sanctioned violence, discussing how this is frequently achieved with the acquiescence of the media. It will be acknowledged that violence is a widespread resort utilised by people and governments around the world to achieve political ends. Numerous groups and, indeed, individuals believe that existing political systems will refuse to recognise and respond to their political ambitions and demands. Violence – in the form of terrorism, for example – can thus be justified and deemed necessary by many groups and individuals in their pursuit of differing political agendas.

In a similar vein, this chapter points out that many governments around the world also resort to the use of violence. On the one hand, governments may use violence to intimidate their own population into acquiescence (see Chapter Eight for a more detailed discussion). On the other hand, governments may also use (exceptional) force to defend their country from outside invasion or other threats such as terrorist bombings (see also Chapter Four). Drawing on some of the discussion in Chapters Two and Three, this chapter outlines the different forms that political violence can take, and explains why the commission of state violence can be deemed necessary by the perpetrators (possibly as a last resort) or why such violence can be viewed as the preferred option to take.

In particular, this chapter introduces the invasion of Iraq by a ‘coalition of the willing’ (the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia) on 20 March 2003 (Bellamy, 2004; Graham and Luke, 2005; Patman, 2006; Hobbs, 2010). The significance of this example is threefold:

• • First, it demonstrates how governments or nation states attempt to justify their actions on the grounds of pre-empting a potential threat against their interests despite the failure of their justifications to materialise (Patman, 2006).

• • Second, the chapter highlights how a government can utilise its justifications and media support not only to ignore mass public demonstrations against such invasive action, but also to condone the perpetration of violence on another state despite the lack of electoral domestic support and despite international approval from the United Nations (UN) and others.

• • Third, the neo-liberal/capitalist drive is also revealed, with the exposure of lucrative contracts being awarded to major corporate players regardless of the devastation and social harm caused by the invasion, war and an uncoordinated, unplanned aftermath.