Griffin Smith

Blog Post #5

GVPT200

    The War on Terror: Understanding the Semantics of Terrorism

     Twelve years into the War on Terror and large-scale military operations in Afghanistan (and eight years of combat operations in Iraq concluding in 2011), many Americans, international relations thinkers, and citizens of other nations currently engaged in the conflict have asked how practical it is to fight a “war on terror”.  Furthermore, what is terrorism? If we are to fight a war on terror we must first know what terrorism is and also what it is not.  In this essay I hope to lay the groundwork for a straightforward definition of what terrorism is using examples from history as well as current events and assess whether or not fighting a global war on terror is a viable foreign policy.

     Terrorism is a relatively new issue in the sphere of international relations, very subtly making its entrance in the 1970s and 1980s.  Despite numerous acts attributed to “terrorists” in prior decades, many would agree that “terrorism” didn’t really become a quintessential, imperative foreign policy issue until 9/11.  The sudden shift of focus onto terrorism as the dominant national security issue and the change from peacetime to America’s longest war has left many grappling for a concrete explanation as to who and why we are fighting.

     Terrorism is a rather confusing topic because the exact origin and definition of the word is a subject of controversy.  In my mind, terrorism should be easier to define if we separate it from other types of conflict or war actions.  The entire purpose of the word “terrorism” is to distinguish it as something unique and something with distinct characteristics.  I don’t believe the purposeful instillation of fear can solely constitute the core of terrorism’s definition, nor do I think it is credible to define terrorism as subjective to perspective interpretation.  Fear is a common and effective tactic in any coercive action, combative or otherwise.  In combat, psychological warfare already has its own classification; hence terrorism must be something else.  My definition of terrorism is acts perpetrated by a non-state entity against a certain group with the goal of instilling terror in the general populace, especially non-combatants, of a given state or group.  A terrorist group must be a non-state entity (although a fringe or minority political faction within a state could be a terrorist group provided that it is not officially in control of the actual state).  For example, if Russia sets off a bomb on a U.S. airbase abroad, it is an act of conventional warfare.  If Russia purposefully sets off a bomb in a crowded marketplace full of non-combatants, or does not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants in an area such as a marketplace being patrolled by U.S. troops, it is a war crime (or genocide if it occurs en masse with the intent of extermination).  However, if a fringe element within Russia, such as a rogue general or an ultra-nationalist party or faction attack either a U.S. military airbase abroad or a marketplace full of civilians, it is a terrorist act.  You will notice that I included the attack on the military airbase as an act of terror despite the military personnel on the base being combatants – this is because the goal of the attack is to spread a message and strike a blow to the morale of the civilian populace at home.

     One of the greatest difficulties/controversies in the school of terrorism is classifying a group as patriots, freedom fighters, or terrorists.  This brings me to the second part of the classification method (the first being to examine the nature and goal of the group): analyzing the group’s conduct.  Take for example the IRA and HAMAS.  Both are non-state entities fighting against a foreign military (HAMAS against Israel and the IRA against Great Britain).  This fits my previous description, so is this why they are considered terrorists? - In my opinion, no.  What sets these groups over the edge from being freedom fighters or rebels is the manner in which they try to achieve their goals: by targeting civilians in order to more forcefully spread a message.  The IRA was once a legitimate independence movement, but became a terrorist group once it began bombing British civilians, soldiers, and Protestants alike in Northern Ireland and the Gibraltar Square plot (which was thwarted by the SAS).  HAMAS has also been indiscriminant at best in attacking Israeli civilians along with soldiers.

     In fear of coming off too long-winded, I want to briefly lend my definition of terrorism to the public confusion over the War on Terror.  In my opinion, people get too wrapped up in the semantics.  Whether we call it the War on Terror, the War on Islamic Terror, or simply “Counter-terrorist operations against Al Qaeda and its global off-shoots”, the required military action will be the same.  I also want to try to affirm the “War on Terror” is not a clever ruse only to justify American presence in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq.  At present, American forces are deployed in Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, the Philippines, and dozens of locations in Africa (just to name a few) engaging in counterterrorist operations against Al Qaeda.  So while I can see the popular name for the war can be confusing and vague, and the enemy elusive and unyielding, I do believe that the present actions are necessary.