What is terrorism? Consensus has been elusive. But now that
the United States is officially at war with terrorism, definition is crucial.
The term has been applied promiscuously to all forms of violence. But to get beyond propaganda, terrorism must be defined according to the quality of the act itself, not the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of their cause. An act is not terrorism simply because one opposes the cause, or because someone labeled "terrorist" carries it out. Nor is an act not terrorism because a cause is deemed noble. Ends do not justify means.
That said, what are the qualities of terrorism?
All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. A terrorist act ordinarily would be considered a crime – murder, kidnapping, arson. Most terrorist acts would also violate the rules of war.
Ordinary criminals may terrify, but they are not terrorists. A single perpetrator pursuing his own cause may be a terrorist, but lone wolves often turn out to be lonely crackpots. The Unabomber was not a terrorist.
Wars may involve acts of terror, but every act of extreme violence is not
terrorism. The Nazi's "final solution," the London Blitz, the atomic bombs
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall in the categories of genocide, war crimes, or
simply elements of brutal, total war, but are not necessarily terrorism.
Hitler wanted to physically eliminate all Jews, not terrorize them. Aerial
bombardment, until recently, was imprecise. Do collateral casualties
constitute terrorism if not the product of deliberate strategy? Probably
not. But to say that an act fits better in the category of war crimes than
terrorism does not lessen our need to condemn it.
What sets terrorism apart from other violence is this: terrorism consists of
acts carried out in a
dramatic way to attract publicity and create an atmosphere of alarm that
goes far beyond the actual victims. Indeed, the identity of the victims is
often secondary or irrelevant to the terrorists who aim their violence at
the people watching. This distinction between actual victims and a target
audience is the hallmark of terrorism and separates it from other modes of
armed conflict. Terrorism is theater.
World leaders may struggle to define terrorism, but at least by identifying
and outlawing specific tactics and targets, countries can cooperate to
limit the tools terrorists use.
For example, international agreements already address airline hijacking,
sabotage, and other
crimes aboard airliners, attacks at airports, and at sea. Not surprisingly,
the world's diplomats have agreed that diplomats and diplomatic facilities
ought not to be targets. Another agreement outlaws hostage-taking; other
agreements deal with nuclear material, plastic explosives,
terrorist bombings, and the financing of terrorism. Together, these comprise
a piecemeal approach to outlawing terrorism.
Inevitably, the new war on terrorism will provoke further debate on the
definition. Some governments may conveniently relabel their foes to obtain US support, while others will justify crackdowns in the name of the war on terrorism.
American ideals may inform the US approach to defining terrorism. But so does
American security. For pragmatic reasons, the US may assist in some conflicts; in others, it may go along with dubious assertions to obtain cooperation needed elsewhere. The
pen may be mightier than the sword, but wars are not won with dictionaries.
