The Real Problem With Terrorism

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades.

Here is a summed up definition of terrorism from a 2001 report of the U.S. State Department (the original report is no longer available online apparently, and thus I use this article as source instead): Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (civilians and/or military personnel who are unarmed, or off duty at the time) by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Acts of terrorism are also considered as attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against military bases.

However clear such a definition may appear to be, it nonetheless falls short when one considers insurgents against a regime or resistance fighters against occupiers. That is why the main difficulty in clearly defining terrorism lies with the unfortunately inconvenient - but nevertheless realistically valid - argument that one state's "terrorist" is often another state's "freedom fighter".

The anti-Sandinista Contras and the IRA are two examples which come quickly to mind, in support of said inherent subjectivity in defining, and labeling, "acts of terrorism".

John Chuckman recently penned an eye-opening article dealing with the subjectivity of what terrorism means, illustrating how many military actions during wars constituted nothing more than actions meant to terrorize populations into surrendering - the unconditional surrender of proud and military powerful Imperial Japan, following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stands out first and foremost in my mind.

However, the point is still currently being illustrated all too well with the conflations of Taliban/non-Taliban Afghani insurgents - or of Iraqi insurgents - with al-Qaeda terrorists, as harped day in and day out by U.S. and Canadian authorities and media, as well as by the usual American/Canadian neoconservative, faux patriotic, and fearmongering/fear-stricken enthusiasts (such as the 101st Keyboard Commandos and their Canadian counterparts, whom I have come to call the Kanuckle Keyboard Kommandos).

Which brings a second underlying truism in the subjective nature of defining terrorism: the use of ideological, political and/or religious dogmatism in labeling acts as terrorism.

To claim that Afghani and Iraqi insurgents (or even the genuinely terrorist al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah militants, for instance) are "against freedom and democracy" is not only facile intellectual sloth-driven absolutism, but likewise constitutes a mendacious rationalization to be used as a political, ideological and/or religious talking point - as John Chuckman elegantly illustrates.

Nonetheless, the fearmongering, fear-stricken American and Canadian madhaters keep on barking and yelping about "Gobal struggle against radical Islamism", "Islamofascism", "Global struggle against terrorism", "protecting our freedoms", "clash of civilizations", "defending Christianity" or even the childish "fighting evil", all the while boasting their faux (cowardly) patriotism and exposing their penchant for religious/governmental authoritarianism - the promotion of which constituting their one and only motivation.

Hence, that is why they accuse of treason anyone who dares to question the validity of the current Afghanistan and Iraq wars;

That is why they keep clamoring for more war (e.g. Iran);

That is why they confuse "support our troops" with "support the mission";

That is why they gleefully applaud the increased militarization and integration of North America;

That is why they applaud and support aberrations like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission's Act;

That is why they are intractable supporters of illegal domestic spying, denial of habeas corpus, indefinite detentions, torture and secret military tribunals;

And that is why they keep clamoring, and seeking, for more.

In short, neocons, Christian fundamentalists and their sympaticos are nothing more than intellectual sloth-driven, frightened and hateful immature children, finding comfort in the simpleton "purity" of their beliefs and ideologies, while seeking security in the strong, manly busoms of Big Daddy/God/General exclusively.

Yes, insurgents are politically motivated - they want occupiers out of their country (whether they be "right" or "wrong" about it)! Yes, al-Qaeda use religion as their main driving motivation against what they perceive as the West encroaching into Muslim countries (again, whether they be "right" or "wrong" about this). IRA wanted independence - so did the FLQ for that matter. And so on, and so forth.

While I have always considered genuine terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, IRA, FLQ, Hamas, Hezbollah and others of their ilk as glaring, reprehensible and unacceptable examples of the Sixth Principle of Incompetence, I find myself nonetheless feeling sympathetic for genuine insurgents such as the Afghani and Iraqi ones - if only because I would be doing the same against foreign occupiers of my own country who refuse to leave.

And that is true patriotism in my book, as opposed to those cheerleaders of war who would not even enlist in order to actually fight for that cherished cause that they claim to fervently espouse.

As I wrote previously:

For the sake of our continued existence, we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ...

... including our very own for embracing such mendacity.

Or, to put it another way: war is so over as a means to enact change, such as the utterly arrogant and presumptuous ideal of "bringing democracy" to other countries.

Hence, the real problem with terrorism lies not with the difficulties in defining it, but rather with the means we choose to confront it and whether we do so with clear heads (such as by remembering that one can't wage war against a method/tactic of fighting), or with fear- and hate-ridden, intellectual sloth-driven reasoning - as being currently done, sadly and tragically enough.

It has been said before by others many a time, yet it remains very à propos to repeat it here: we have met the enemy and the enemy is ourselves.

The question now becomes: what are we to do about this?


(Cross-posted at Dkos, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)