Jon
Rockwood
Professor
Shirk
What
Is Terrorism? Essay
February
6, 2017
Defining Terrorism
Throughout history, wherever there
has been a ruler, there have been those who disapprove of that ruler. Those who
rebel against authority in pursuit of a certain goal are quickly labeled after
displaying their extreme anger and disapproval of those who are in power. From
one perspective, these rebels are called freedom fighters – pushing the agenda
of a certain group, who are supported by likeminded individuals. From another
perspective, those radicals are labeled as terrorists from those who were
harmed or effected from the rebellious act. A third perspective, perhaps from a
passive bystander, may be unable to categorize the group or the act they
committed as one term or another because of a lack of clear definition of
terrorism or freedom fighting, but wants those responsible to be punished or
positively recognized for their acts. The lack of a widely accepted definition
of terrorism is what allows individuals to go unprosecuted after committing
acts that some individuals and nations would deem as terrorism. Authors such as
Charles Tilly, Philip Bobbitt, Marcus Rediker, and Lisa Stampnitzky aim to
create a universally accepted definition of what terrorism is in their
respective works, Terror, Terrorism,
Terrorists; Terror and Consent; Villains of all Nations; Disciplining Terror. After
analyzing the aforementioned texts, I believe a clearly defined definition of
terrorism is: the use of unconventional violence and terror, deployed by
non-state actors against an enemy government or civilian non-combatants, in
pursuit of a political goal or agenda. My definition of terrorism, as stated
above, outlines all the necessary characteristics for one act to be labeled as
terrorism or not.
Peeling back each layer of my
definition of what terrorism is is crucial to understanding the complexity of
the subject at hand. First, defining unconventional violence and terror as a
strategy that is employed by non-state actors (terrorists) is a key concept to
understand. Unconventional violence, I believe, are tactics that Tilly states:
“kidnapping, murder, and mutilation;” tactics that almost always outside of the
norms of current war tactics during a given era.[1]
Unconventional violence is so closely tied to terror because neither tactic
follows common Rules of Engagement practiced by westernized militaries. As
Tilly states in his work, terror sends signals, “signals that the target is
vulnerable, that the perpetrators exist, and that the perpetrators have the
capacity to strike again.”[2]
I believe that using terror is about intimidating ones ideological enemies and
attempting to establish the legitimacy of ones cause by demonstrating ones
possible power. Tilly’s definition of terror aids my claim when he states, “terror
works best when it alters or inhibits the target’s disapproved behavior,” and affects
“third parties that might cooperate with [the target] or [the perpetrator].”[3]
Where unconventional violence and terror differs from random acts of violence
is with the intent to intimidate opponents on a large scale by using irrationally
violent tactics.
A vital detail in discerning acts of
terrorism from acts of war is analyzing the perpetrators; whether they are state
governments or non-state groups. Though largely undefined, terrorism has been a
reoccurring problem throughout history. According to Rediker in his piece,
pirates of the 18th century, “did not consider themselves ‘common
Robbers, Opposers and Violators of all Laws humane and divine,’ but the did
think of themselves as people without a nation.”[4]
18th century pirates renounced their citizenships to embrace a life
of piracy and pursue their political goals without any ties to a nation. Rediker
provides more examples of no nation pirates conducting terror onto combatant
and non-combatant targets when he describes, “the pirates’ penchant for terror
even seems to have had an intimidating effect on the officers and sailors of
the British Royal Navy,” and in “171, after Boston’s rulers hanged eight
members of Black Sam Bellamy’s crew, pirates who were still at sea vowed to
‘kill every body they took belonging to New England,” regardless of societal
status.[5]
I believe that legitimate governments who conduct acts of war may
unintentionally hurt or kill civilian non-combatants, yet that is not
considered terrorism because those civilian deaths were not intended, whereas
terrorists who commit acts of terrorism aim to harm both civilians and
institutions, in my opinion. Rediker goes on to argue “a portion of pirate terror
was the standard issue of war making, which pirates undertook without the
approval of any nation-state,” which further supports my assertion that
non-state actors who conduct violent acts that may be war-like tactics at that
time, is a characteristic of terrorism because of their lack of tie to a
nation.[6]
Recognizing non-state entities that conduct terror onto an enemy government or
civilian non-combatants is an important characteristic to highlight when
defining what terrorism is.
A final characteristic to define
what terrorism is must involve a political goal or agenda. Arguably the most
infamous terrorist of the 20th and 21st century, Osama
bin Laden, clearly stated his political and ideological reasoning behind
orchestrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Bobbitt illustrates bin Laden’s agenda in his passage, “in May 1998, bin Laden
issued a statement entitled ‘The Nuclear Bomb of Islam,’ under the banner of
the ‘International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders,’ in which
stated that ‘it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to
terrorize the enemies of God.’”[7]
Clearly articulating his goals to push Islam onto all those who do not follow
his religion, bin Laden exemplifies what terrorism is – by inflicting terror
onto all non-Muslim peoples, through his own right as a non-state actor, in
order to achieve his goal. Stampnitzky goes on to add, “Counterinsurgency
experts generally assumed that insurgents had rational, intelligible, political
motives,” further exemplifying that terrorism includes political motives.[8]
Without political motives intended to challenge the ideology of another group
of people, any act of terror would just be categorized as a random act of
violence.
Terrorism and the ways to combat it
will always continue to change for the rest of history. With the changing of
terror tactics deployed by those seeking to intimidate others, the definition
of what terrorism is will also have to continue to change. Charles Tilly,
Philip Bobbitt, Marcus Rediker, and Lisa Stampnitzky provide expert examples of
the many layers of how one can define what terrorism is. In my opinion,
terrorism is the use of unconventional violence and terror, deployed by
non-state actors against an enemy government or civilian non-combatants, in
pursuit of a political goal or agenda. By outlining concrete characteristics of
what terrorism is, I believe those who commit it will be held responsible for
their actions, and the global war on terror will continue to succeed.
Works Cited
Tilly,
Charles. "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists." Sociological Theory
22, no. 1 (2004): 5-13.
Rediker, Marcus. Villains of All Nations; Atlantic Pirates in
the Golden Age (Beacon Press, Boston, 2004), 7-8.
Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century (Alfred
A. Knopf: New York, 2008), 26-63.
Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented
“Terrorism” (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2013). 1-82.
[4] Rediker, Marcus. Villains of All Nations; Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age (Beacon
Press, Boston, 2004), 7-8.
[5] Rediker, Villains of All Nations, 13.
[6] Rediker, Villains of All Nations, 15.
[7] Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century (Alfred
A. Knopf: New York, 2008), 59.
[8] Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism” (Cambridge
University Press: New York, 2013). 53.
No comments:
Post a Comment