What is Terrorism?

Grace Picariello

February 6, 2017

Global Politics of Terrorism

Professor Shirk

What is Terrorism?

            After the attacks of 9/11, George W. Bush declared that the United States was fighting a “war on terror”. But how could the United States government fight a “War on terror” when they and the media were not exactly clear on how to define terrorism? The well-known phrase: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”(Gerald Seymour) perfectly encapsulates this problem with defining the word terrorism. In agreement with the United States State Department, terrorism is “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (US State Department). Rapport’s definition, which is like that of Tilly, aligns similarly with the definition the State Department has in use. Rapport explains terrorism as being, non-state actors, attacking civilians. Their actions are not necessarily tied to a specific ideology. However, they can be politically, religiously, or nationally motivated. Tilly sees terrorism as a strategy, not a creed, that is used to achieve some sort of political goal. In his journal, Tilly contends that, “We can reasonably define that strategy as asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime” (Tilly, 5).  To condense what acts ought to be considered terrorist acts, the idea that terrorism is committed by non-state groups against non-combatants for some ideological goal is the most useful and efficient way to define this phenomenon.

            Some of the most commonly talked about terrorist attacks have been committed against civilians by subnational groups. For example, the attacks on September 11, 2001 deliberately inflicted violence, for political reasons, against civilians by a non-state group, Al Qaeda. Things get shaky when states are accused of using terrorism against their constituents. Therefore, it is useful to give that a different name altogether, instead of including it under the umbrella definition of terrorism. It is important to remember that, since most terrorist organizations are not recognized as legitimate by states, they are not subject to the same kind of legal processes that states in war are. For example, Al Qaeda would not be subject to trial under the Geneva Convention because they are not a legitimate nation. Therefore, the acts that they can get away with could be more broad, in theory, than the violence that a state could inflict, assuming the terrorist groups have enough man power, machinery, and money. This is of course, not always the case. However, it is important to note that since there is a fundamental difference between a state group and a subnational or non-state group, the violence that they commit needs to be processed differently. Furthermore, it is incredibly important to keep the understood definition of terrorism very tight to keep the concerns of terrorism urgent and to set terrorist attacks apart from other acts of violence.

During the Cold War era, many were afraid of the possibility of nuclear annihilation at any given time. Today, this does not pose so much of an imminent threat. Instead, the possibility of a random bombing seems to possess more fear. This is because “terrorists began to attack people previously considered innocents to… [and] these indirect attacks create a public atmosphere of anxiety and undermine confidence in government”(US Army Field Manual).This is one testament to why terrorism ought to be considered violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets. The assumption that terrorist acts must be violent attacks against civilians is one that makes the idea of terrorism much more intense. This is, since the victims are so vulnerable, the acts are looked at as especially cruel.

Terrorism is rightfully defined by the United States State Department as a premeditated, politically motivated action taken by subnational groups or clandestine agents against non-combatant civilians. Since terrorism is such a significant thing, the definition that is understood needs to be more rigid than just an act of terror. The component of the definition that speaks to the fact that an act of terror needs to be against a non-combatant person or group sufficiently tightens up the understanding. Furthermore, it is clearly noted that a state or national governing body cannot commit an act of terrorism. They certainly can do illegal things and take actions that are like terrorism, however, it is important that state actions are not considered terrorism and are instead put into a different category. This will keep our idea of terrorism more selective, as it should be.

Assessing the motivation of an action is a key aspect of coming up with a comprehensive definition of terrorism. It is reasonable to argue that the motivation is what sets acts of terrorism apart from other kinds of violence. Most scholars would agree that a terrorist act can be distinguished from other acts of violence, as terrorist are usually motivated by a political, religious, ideological, or nationalist reason. This variation is important to focus on, as the ideology and motivations of the terrorist group will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, and is ultimately what enables the government to differentiate between crimes and acts of terrorism. Such an understanding of the motivation is what defines the murder of one’s partner, for example, a crime but not an act of terror. In is known that a definition gains its relevance and effectiveness in its application, making the assessing the motivations of different terrorist groups it will allow for a more thorough application of the definition of terrorism. To effectively defeat your enemy, you need to be able to predict their methods and likely targets, which is enabled by and understanding of their motivations. The same strategy should be employed by the US government when counteracting terrorism. “Combating terrorism requires a continuous state of awareness” (US Army Field Manual) and part of this awareness is understanding the driving force behind deadly attacks. The Department of Defense definition of terrorism is, “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (Department of Defense). In this definition, the DOD tries to distinguish the difference between violent acts of terror with “normal” acts of violence, by establishing the motivations behind the act. Although it may be difficult to specifically assign a signal motivation, the vague motivation used in this definition offer no guidelines and gets no closer to figuring out how to deal with terrorism. Therefore, any legitimate definition of terrorism must have a comprehensive understanding of the motivations of the act, which judging by recent events, seems primarily to be political or ideological.

In a time where the world is more globalized and our borders are becoming less rigid, national security is at the forefront, everyone is talking about it. This makes the threat of terrorism much more apparent and real. Thus, it is vital that we agree on one definition of what we consider to be terrorism, as the United States of America. This way, we can better come up with strategies regarding how to effectively deal with the violence committed by non-state actors. In doing so, we will be able to minimize civilian casualties. Although there are several definitions of terrorism and what it takes for something to be an act of terrorism, the most convincing is the definition by the US State Department since it does the best job at accurately describing our current situation with terrorists and terrorism.

Works Cited

United States State Department, definition of terrorism.

United States Department of Defense, definition of terrorism.

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.” Sociological Theory 22.1 (March, 2004): 5.

U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-20. “The Terrorism Research Center.” Stability and Support Operations, (Final Draft), "Chapter 8: Combatting Terrorism (2002).