(Note: I'll be using footnotes for this piece because I think flow is interrupted badly otherwise. Also I should acknowledge that the direct inspiration for this piece came from a conversation with RB)
There are a number of things that jump out for an observer of the discourse of our age. For me, two of those things are 1) The debate over the definitions of 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' (as exemplified by the UN) and 2) What I see as the wild mislabeling of entities and actions as 'terrorists' and 'terrorism' respectively. I think it's fairly obvious to the reader that #1 leads to #2 in a very direct way and so is the more pressing question.
I am, in no subtle way, setting this essay up as my attempt to define these two terms but I would make one further division in setting up the issue before I attempt a response: Given that, (broadly speaking) a terrorist is one who engages in terrorism, the ultimate question here is 'what is terrorism'? That's hardly a profound observation, but it's worth stating to give us a framework.
Terrorism
Much of the debate over the definition is fueled by those who want to either defend or condemn entities they consider engaged in terrorism, but there also seems to be a lot of honest mistakes in terminological imprecision. For a philosophy major, the definition of words can be tricky thing to argue for in a persuasive way, but I will try. It seems to me that everyone engaged in this discussion is looking to have the word contain the following concepts:
- An interest in instilling fear in a populace for specific ends. (It is terrorism after all)
- A focus on intentionally targeting non-military elements of a society.
After that, however, it seems to me that people diverge.(#1)
The big questions that arise beyond that common ground are 1) whether traditional, state-sponsored armies can engage in terrorism and 2) whether the label of terrorism depends on the cause of the relevant organization.
Question 2 seems relatively answerable given what we've discussed above: No. Terrorism is used (in every case I can think) as a claim about an entity's tactics. To claim that 'freedom fighting' and 'terrorism' are mutually exclusive makes no sense. 'Freedom fighting' is a fairly subjective term; I wouldn't call communist guerillas 'freedom fighters', but a communist might. On the other hand, a tactic should be a fairly objective term (as should a word descriptive of tactics). To return to those guerillas: I find their cause loathsome but in this example we shall say that they are very scrupulous about only attacking military targets. Therefore I can not say they are engaged in 'terrorism'. Making an argument along the lines of "this organization's actions can not be described as terrorism because they fight for...." is nonsensical.
To answer Question 1 (two paragraphs above), we need to ask another fairly fundamental question: does 'terrorism' refer to a distinct concept? If it does not, then it does not qualify as a tactic but instead serves purely as a way of describing actual tactics. That's a valid thing to say, but then events that we probably wouldn't describe as terrorism become terrorism: Sherman's March Through Georgia, most of the bombing campaigns of World War 2, medieval sieges, etc. These things all involved explicitly targetting civilian populations for the sake of causing purposeful fear, but I suspect most of us would hesitate calling that terrorism (even if some of us feel that these actions are unspeakably cruel or bad).
Why might those events not qualify as terrorism? Firstly, it seems that we build a more purely political desire in to terrorism. Those above events occured with the purpose of destroying an enemy's warmaking ability or otherwise forcing that enemy's military surrender. Terrorism seems to be associated with, as stated, political goals: scaring a population in to voting such a way (ie Madrid) or otherwise forcing a political outcome (especially 'independence' of a group such as the PKK in Turkey) or causing increased unrest in such and such a society (the Bali bombing). In short, causing enough grief and pressure through attacking civilians that the grief causing group's political demands are met. To confuse political capitulation with military surrender is to conflate two very different concepts.
We also, I suspect, would call the above events (WW2 bombing campaigns, etc) events of 'total war'. In instances of total war we seem to have very different standards of behavior for participants to adhere to. The brutality of World War 2 is a perfect example of this. Terrorism, I suspect, would be an example for most people of a state of less-than-total-war and so would not be appropriate.
If we accept the above, then terrorism can not just be a description. Further reinforcing that we do think of it as a tactic is that we have other words that correspond to other specific types of tactics, but nothing besides 'terrorism' for what I'd argue terrorism is. Conflicts between militaries is 'war' or other synonyms; militaries targetting civilian populations that are protected by militaries is 'total war'; militaries targetting civilian populations that they control is 'suppression' or 'oppression'; armed forces (state-affiliated or otherwise) targetting military forces using the tactics of assymetrical warfare (#2) is 'guerilla warfare'. So what would armed forces targetting civilian populations using the tactics of assymetrical warfare be? Presumably this is where the word 'terrorism' fits in. It certainly seems to fit many people's most common conceptions.
If we add in the intentions we ascribe to terrorism (such as the political goals) then we seem to have a fairly good working defintion. Some might argue that such political goals are built in to assymetrical warfare. Others might go further and say that there doesn't seem to be a good reason to engage in assymetrical warfare with civilian populations except for political goals. Certainly this author can't think of an additional reason besides some kind of raw bloodlust.
So we have our definition of our terrorism: "Armed forces targetting civilian populations using the tactics of assymetrical warfare for political ends."
Terrorists
What, then, is a terrorist? Presumably it is an individual who engages in terrorism as defined. However, it doesn't make sense to say that terrorism is the only thing a terrorist does. Surely we wouldn't call a group anything other than terrorists even if they periodically interspersed their targetting of civilians with the killing of soldiers.(#3) In a similar vein, we would call actions that target civilians to be 'terrorist actions', but if the group responsible for such actions spent most of its time fighting enemy soldiers then it makes more sense to call them 'guerillas' as that is most of what they do.
Obviously there will be times where it is unclear whether a group would better be called 'terrorists' or 'guerillas' but there is no particular reason that it can not be both simultaneously. 'Terrorist' and 'guerilla' are only intended to identify the primary activity of the individual and are not mutual exclusive. One can not be a pacifist and a guerilla and the same time, but there's no reason one can't be both a guerilla and a terrorist.
So our definition of a terrorist is: "One who uses the tactics of terrorism as much or more than any other tactic."
Consequences
If one accepts the reasoning offered above, then it becomes very hard to sympathize with the debate in the UN. Organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas or Al-Qaida are terrorists. Period. They may be justified (this author couldn't disagree more) or be terrorists and freedom fighters, but their tactics are terrorism and they are therefore terrorists. They may also be terrorists and guerillas, but these organizations have their bread and butter in the targetting of civilians for political ends. This is exactly the definition for terrorism formulated above. That said, however, the abduction of soldiers that prompted the current fighting in Lebanon was NOT terrorism, it was guerilla warfare.
And Israel? They are mostly using conventional warfighting techniques against (depending on whom you ask) either a) Hezbollah or b) the people of Lebanon. This author believes a) and finds b) an absurd claim but, if one were to believe b) it would still not make Israel engaged in terrorism: it is engaged in 'total war' in such an instance. And in the case of a), this author could see two acceptable answers: either Israel is engaged in a massive counter-terrorism campaign or it is fighting on the conventional side in a guerilla war. Neither constitutes anything like terrorism.
This author believes that Israel is mostly in the right, but it should be stressed that one can feel that Israel is being wholly inappropriate without claiming that Israel is involved in terrorism. This is a matter of terminological precision, NOT exonerating behavior.
Another example (the one that got the author thinking about this some months ago) is that it is not terrorism when American soldiers are attacked in Iraq. Again, it is guerilla warfare. The terrorism that occurs in Iraq (and there is a lot of it) is what's taking so many unfortunate Iraqi lives in the Sunni Triangle. To try to claim that the former is the same as the latter is either demagoguery or simple wrongheadedness. And it's worth mentioning that, like the Israelis, the Americans are not commiting 'acts of terrorism' nor is America 'the world's greatest terrorist'. That fact doesn't exonerate U.S. foreign policy (this author doesn't feel that very necessary) but it does put the lie to one of the more absurd claims made against it.
Footnotes
#1. One might argue that everyone wants to build in a concept of loathsomeness to the word and that is probably true, but I'd like to back away from that as an inherent meaning to the word and allow the actual actions described by the word dictate whether it's loathsome for the individual. It is the difference between the content of a word and it's implications. For example: we do not hate evil things because we hate the word 'evil', but because we hate the things we call evil. As another example 'crept' and 'skulked' can describe the same action: sneaking around. However, while 'skulked' often has a sinister connotation, 'crept' is often much more neutral.
1(cont.) This brings up the question of whether a word's connotations are divorced from its meanings. This is an old debate to which I probably have nothing meaningful to add. Instead I'll try to sidestep it by suggesting that the intention here is purely to describe the content of a noun ('terrorism') or a tactic, to be more specific. In defining a tactic it makes sense to describe the behavior in as empirical a way as possible and allow the individual to make their own value judgment as opposed to building the judgment in to the noun.
#2. The term 'assymetrical warfare' is often misunderstood. It refers to a style of fighting and does not refer simply to differences in strength between armies. In other words, the United States fighting Monaco may be an unfair fight, but it would not be assymterical warfare simply because of differences in capability. Should one side begin using certain tactics (often called 'non-conventional'), then it could accurately be called 'assymetrical warfare'.
#3. Killing soliders, however, would not be terrorism. It would be guerilla warfare.
