The Definition of Terrorism

A mere definition seems like a trivial topic for a blog post, but I believe that in the case of terrorism, it's vital. Certainly without understanding one's enemy, conflict becomes mysterious and unpredictable, like a game of Mao, only with millions of lives at stake. However, unlike Mao, since the stakes are so high, there are additional confounders in the form of deliberately misleading propaganda, as well as confusion introduced by intense emotions.

Most people have a “gut” definition of terrorism. This is the definition we see in play at the level of national discourse, used by news anchor-bots and politicians, as well as your batty aunt Mildred. To wit: there are certain acts which are “terroristic” in nature (suicide bombings, kidnappings for ransom, etc); terrorism is the commission of a terrorist act. Furthermore, since certain kinds of people are typically the ones committing terrorist acts (e.g. Muslims, especially Arabs), when in doubt you can look to group membership to sort things out. For a moment, set aside from the blatantly racist and historically ludicrous nature of the last part, and focus on the central issue: there are terroristic acts. In practice we may have a list of some acts, but why are any of them on the list? What if I kidnapped Bill Gates' wife for ransom? Most people would say that wasn't a terrorist act ---clearly motivation matters. At some point, governments (and most interested people) try to come up with a definition that isn't merely a list. And that's when the trouble begins...

The U.S. definition of terrorism, from Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the U.S. Code:

the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

Now at least we see some rationale for including different acts on our list. Kidnapping Bill Gates' wife for fun and profit presumably isn't “politically motivated” (unless you're the notorious terrorist, Linus Torvalds). However, something strange has snuck its way in there: the phrase “subnational groups”. This is not an accident. The stipulation that nation-states -by definition- can't be terrorists is hotly contested, because it amounts to no more than a “it's not terrorism when we do it” clause. Yet most (perhaps all) governments have a strong motivation to put in place such a clause.

In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us [...] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. ---Edward Peck

Indeed, it's tempting to claim that the greatest president in U.S. history might have more than most to fear from a honest, natural definition of terrorism, considering his support for the School of the Americas and the Contras:

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit. (a Sandinista militia man quoted in The Guardian, via Wikipedia)

However, that isn't fair, as there's no evidence that Ronald Reagan was any worse than other presidents.

So early on, we encounter a brutal reality: we all have an instinctive idea of what terrorism is, but when we try to make that idea precise, we find that nearly everyone is guilty of it. It is precisely this problem that has prevented the adoption of a universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism at the U.N. You should read their brief synopsis of their attempts. As an alternative to the ideas prevalent at the U.N., some (including Edward Peck) advocate abandoning use of the word “terrorism”.

Instead, I would like to wade into this mess and offer my own suggestion. Adopt the most basic and natural definition possible: “terrorism is any action carried out with the goal of furthering some agenda by instilling fear”. Then simply accept the fact that virtually any conceivable military activity is terroristic in nature to some extent. A bomb strapped to a militant fighter and a bomb dropped from an F16 inspire the same terror. All military campaigns have some terroristic aspect ---if that was not so, a country could become immune to the threat of attack by eliminating its military and thereby denying enemies "legitimate" targets. In reality, of course, the result would be the massacre or enslavement of the populace by anyone who found it in their "interest". Those of us living in powerful, stable countries may have forgotten about the terrorism inherent in warfare, but it is there, and has been appreciated since the dawn of time

In times of siege Timur’s tent was hung with white banners the first day, to indicate to the people within the city that they might surrender and be spared; with red the second day to show that if they surrendered now their leaders must die; with black thereafter to warn them to look for nothing but burial (Arab historian Ibn Khaldun)

Of course there's a huge difference between terroristic acts carried out by states, and those carried out by sub-state militant groups ---raw power. State actors like the U.S. can realistically conceive of exterminating all their enemies, and thus their terroristic tactics (e.g. “Shock and Awe”) take on a supportive role. By contrast, for all their bluster, neither Al Qaeda nor the various Iraqi insurgent groups can actually kill all the Americans, and thus terrorism takes on a larger role in their strategy.

So ultimately, what is the point of this quibbling over definitions? Exactly this: much effort is wasted on questions like “Why are these people so evil? Why do they engage in terrorism?” With the proper perspective, these questions can be seen for what they are ---red herrings. Their answers are simple: “They're evil because they're your enemies. They're engaging in terrorism because they're fighting you.” The real question, the one who's answer can be used to avoid (or if necessary win) conflict, is “Why are these people fighting us?”