Revised Terrorism - U.S. War on Terror/Al Qaeda

David Solomon

Professor Shirk

POL 357-B

5 May 2017

Revised Terrorism Essay

When looking back on the paper I wrote in February it is very clear that I was confused and found it difficult to define the term terrorism. I wish I could tell you that throughout the semester I was finally able to come to a definitive conclusion on how I define the term, but unfortunately that is not the case. Nevertheless, the various case studies we looked at during the course of the semester did make me question the definition I ended up providing in my last paper. In that paper my definition of terrorism was, “ terrorism is the natural progression throughout time of non-state groups using terror as a tactic against states in an attempt to achieve their own agenda.” For the most part I have not changed my mind on this definition, as I still see terrorism as a tactic used by non-state actors. However, my understanding of the difference between the terms terror and terrorism have become much more succinct. By discussing the strategies imposed by the U.S. War on Terror and the actions taken by Al Qaeda, I hope to show the difference between these two words and how it is vital in understanding why the word terrorism is even used. My new definition of terrorism is the strategical use of terror by non-state actors to promote and ultimately achieve their political agenda.

By labeling the U.S. War on Terror as terrorism one only blurs the lines between that and terror. When looking at terror itself, the sources of its provocation can come from a multitude of places. Terrorism on the other hand (as noted earlier) is a strategy a group inherits to accomplish a political goal. As we can see, just because terror can be observed in a certain situation it does not explicitly mean that terrorism was its cause. No one is denying the fact that use of drone strikes, torture, rendition, and bulk collection cause terror. However, since the United States is a sovereign nation it is seen on the international stage as being in a war, hence the title “War on Terror.” These so called acts of terrorism are thus deemed tactics of war and the causation of terror is simply a consequence of this fact. If a state were to commit terrorism it would be subsequently at the same time denying its legitimacy. Hypothetically speaking, this means that if the United States government were to start drone striking American citizens to enforce its authority, that this would not be deemed terrorism but rather something else. In other words, terrorism is illegitimate and if humanity wants to identify states as being legitimate, it cannot state that their actions are terrorism in fear of contradicting this reality.

This is why it is okay to label a group such as Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization. In essence, terrorism specifically defines the actions of non-state actors. Although the group claims to be leading a war on the metaphysical plane between Muslims and a Judeo-Christian alliance, this war is not identified as legitimate on the wider international stage. Al Qaeda as a group is not a sovereign power and do not have international recognition as such.  As a result, they are relegated to the status of non-state actor and thus the violent actions they commit against others are deemed terrorism.

Many critics may take this interpretation of the word terrorism and apply it to a case such as the Holocaust, arguing that this is a perfect example of a state committing terrorism. More specifically they would note that the systematic killing of six million Jews instilled fear and terror among not only the Jewish community but also the world. Lastly, they would see that denying this event as being terrorism is ultimately downplaying the horrific nature of this atrocity. However, my argument from the beginning has not to downplay the horrific nature of suspected acts of terrorism but rather a redefinition of term so that a more accurate understanding of it can be applied to world events. If anything, labeling the Holocaust terrorism only plays into the argument made by Lisa Stampnitzky that it is a term used by political experts and leaders to distinguish who the enemy is in the public eye. This abuse of the term has created a cloud of ambiguity that surrounds it misleading people’s understanding of it. As a consequence, it has made people believe that anything that instills terror must be terrorism.