Terrorism

Defining Terrorism

The first problem is to define terrorism. We have all heard the refrain, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” We have heard this theme and its variations so often that it has been impossible to fix on a single definition of terrorism that satisfies everyone. Part of the blame lies with the United Nations and its politicization of the term. Certain components tend to appear in most serious attempts to define this elusive term, but none is without its difficulties.

The first focuses on the nature of the targeted victims. The deliberate killing of innocent civilians is a central element in most definitions of terrorism, but if this were the only criterion, then one would have to consider the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden by the armed forces of the United States and Great Britain terrorism. Whatever else these actions may constitute, most people would not consider them terrorism. On the other hand, the recent attacks on the Pentagon and the Marine barracks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia are widely regarded as acts of terrorism—certainly by the U.S. government—even though the targets were primarily military.

Another element that often figures into the definition of terrorism is the nature of those who commit the violence. According to many definitions of terrorism, only groups that are not part of the official apparatus of the state can commit terrorism. A distinguishing characteristic of what many people regard as terrorism—and the characteristic that makes it so difficult to punish—is its shadowy nature. Most acts of terrorism are difficult to pin on nation-states. Instead, unofficial groups, which have no standing army and no permanent location where preventive or retaliatory actions [Page 1473]can be focused, commit them. The terrorist kills and then blends back into the civilian population or dies. Increasingly, the terrorist may be a woman, a teenager, or even a child.

Officials label all efforts to retaliate or prevent future terrorism collective punishment, which others often condemn. The word terrorism itself has its historical origins not in the actions of shadowy groups but in acts of terror inflicted by the state on its own citizens: the “reign of terror” conducted by the French revolutionary government was the paradigm. Terror was also an integral part of the Stalinist, Nazi, Peronist, and other totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

Yet a third aspect of many definitions of terrorism includes the mechanism by which those who engage in violence seek to influence the actions and attitudes of their intended audiences. Terrorists seek to attract attention to their cause by employing, or threatening, dramatic acts of violence that capture the attention of the media and terrorize large populations. David Rapoport characterized terrorism as “propaganda by the deed” (1984: 660)—to which I would add, by violent and deadly deeds, often against the most vulnerable and innocent of victims and often as only an initial step in a multifaceted program of violence. If “war is a mere continuation of policy by other means,” as Carl von Clausewitz once observed (1827: chap.1, § 24), then terrorism is war by other means. Criminal organizations, such as the Mafia or Colombian drug cartels, also employ terror as a technique, but their objective is financial rather than military, religious, or nationalistic. They are different in kind from the global terrorists we fear most because they narrowly design violence to terrorize competitors and the police.

...