Terrorism: Always Bad?

In my latest post on the definition of terrorism, I came to the conclusion that terrorism is an action targeting civilians (whether by violence or threat of violence) with the intention of inciting fear in other civilians. The implicit assumption was that terrorism is always a bad, evil thing.

But Mister Pregunto, in his usual style, has raised an interesting question. He states

[T]he use of limited terror against citizens in pursuit of strategic aims is a time-honoured military practice. Terror doesn't always mean the wanton murder of civilians. Terror as a tool can be, and has been, employed in various ways and degrees for strategic military or political purposes. For example, threats against a people can be used to force its military to weaken its grip on that which is militarily important in order to go to the defence of the people. It also may be used with the intent to coerce the people into ending a war sooner. What else was the point of Sherman's march to the sea?

Arguably, there may be many cases where the use of terror in this way has shortened the duration of wars.

Under what circumstances is the strategic use of terror ethical?

And to that I state: Excellent question! Sherman's march to the sea is only one example. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are other examples of what could be considered terrorist actions under my definition, and yet I would approve of them.

What makes the atomic bombings good and the World Trade Center attacks bad? What is it that separates them?

An argument in favor of the atomic bombings is that theoretically it prevented far more deaths than it caused. The Japanese government and people would not have capitulated to military force very easily, and many more people may have died in a conventional war than from the two nuclear attacks. The attacks were designed to make Japan think twice about the consequences of continued war and to force a surrender. The 9/11 attacks, on the other hand, were not to end a war but rather to . . . I don't know, and I don't suppose I could ever understand what they hoped to accomplish. Could it be that they perceived they were already in a war, and that they were trying to end it?

But now you see that I'm throwing motive into the discussion, and I had previously avoided doing so. Perhaps it is unavoidable.

We can't draw the line between "good" terrorism and "bad" terrorism on any basis related to who the aggressor is. We were the aggressors in the current Iraq war, but that doesn't make it OK for people to attack and execute our civilians just because they're Americans, or British, or whoever.

So I think I'm going to have to go back to the discussion in my post on (Just?) War yet again. The analysis is a cost-benefit one. Terrorism is not necessarily evil. You need to take into account the costs and benefits of any particular terrorist attack in order to determine its desirability. I'm going to quote myself here:

No matter how just your motivations are for going to war, if you target civilians your war becomes less just. Attacking only military targets is more just. Also, any tactics that reduce the total number of casualties (on both sides) are more just.

So I'm going to have to go back on myself and state that motivation is actually important, because it's part of the calculus of determining whether the war is "just". You need to consider the alternatives as well as the motivation for the attack.

And this makes the whole situation a lot muddier.

My conclusion? If a nation (or organization) wants to be respected in the world scene, they need to keep my original definition of terrorism in mind. If they ever consider using terrorist tactics, they must first have an extremely good reason for attacking in the first place (eradication of the Jews, for example, would not be a very good one), and they must consider and discount all other possible alternatives. Terrorism is a last resort.

The problem arises, however, that terrorism is perhaps the only realistic option for certain groups that have limited resources. These groups also feel that their motivations are quite just, and in fact commanded by their god. How do you explain to them that their actions are not justified? You can't.

So, perhaps, we need to apologize profusely for any terrorist tactics that we've ever used and refrain from ever using them again in the future, no matter the cost. In this way, we set an example to follow.

Or perhaps this cost is too great.

An unsolvable dilemma.

What Is Terrorism?

That seems like an obvious question. What is terrorism? But I think we are in danger of losing sight of what it is exactly. And once we do that, we lose sight of what makes the United States (and other countries, of course) better than the people we call terrorists.

This is really a simple question, and it deserves a simple answer.

Terrorism is any attack which targets civilians.

So why are we losing sight of what terrorism is? Well, to answer that, we need to discuss what terrorism isn't. Not all suicide attacks are terrorism. People seem to think that anyone who walks into a crowd of US soldiers and blows himself up is a terrorist. This simply isn't so. Misguided, perhaps (see my post titled (Just?) War for more on that determination), but not terrorist. Similarly, just because a combatant isn't in a military uniform doesn't mean that he's a terrorist. If uniforms were important, then any time our soldiers shoot at a non-uniformed combatant they would be engaging in terrorism.

I've also heard people accusing Israel of engaging in terrorism in the recent fighting in the Middle East. This is simply not the case. Yes, civilians die due to the attacks by Israel. But civilians are not the target. Civilians almost always are harmed in any major combat, but collaterally, not intentionally. In the recent fighting in particular, Hezbollah is more at fault for civilian deaths in Lebanon than the Israelis who fire the missiles because Hezbollah puts their military equipment adjacent to civilians.

By way of analogy, if Cobra Commander straps children to the front of a tank, it doesn't make G.I. Joe a terrorist when the children get hurt in any attempt to disable the tank. It makes Cobra Commander the jerk (although perhaps not a terrorist, because a further refinement to the definition of terrorism would be that they target civilians from the enemy nation).

The same critics of Israel also say that they are terrorist because they target civilian infrastructure in their attacks. Characterizing infrastructure as "civilian" in this instance may be erroneous. This line is not as obvious as you may think. Surely, the World Trade Center was civilian infrastructure, as it had only civilian/economic purposes. But take our Interstate system in the US. For foreigners who don't know, this is a complex national highway system. It could certainly be called "civilian" infrastructure if you wanted to do that, but it would be an oversimplification. Any time the military needs it, they can deny civilians access to the system. A large reason for building it in the first place was to provide a method for the military to move equipment and troops quickly. Therefore, an attack on the Interstate system is not necessarily a terrorist attack. It could be, if the reason for the attack was to harm civilians in the process, but if you do it to slow down the military then it's not terrorism.

So why is the definition of terrorism important? We need to remember why terrorism is evil, so that we can defeat it. We can never legitimize this kind of tactic--the Spanish government has lost all credibility in my mind (and the minds of all terrorists) because they capitulated to terrorism (and therefore legitimized it). If there's one positive thing you can say about George W. Bush, it's that he will never legitimize terrorism. He might blur the line to make himself look better, but he won't legitimize it.