Defining Terrorism by Christopher Bouchard

Christopher Bouchard

Professor Shirk

POL:357

5/1/17

Defining Terrorism?

            Terrorism is the action of targeting non-combatant populations by non-state actors in an attempt to coerce and persuade state actors into an end goal either political or economic.  Terrorism has been defined in different ways in the past but wrongly so.  Terrorism cases are talked about all over the world but many instances of violence and aggression are called terrorism by some people when they are in fact not.  The lack of a definitive agreed upon definition of terrorism is what can blur the line between an act of war by a country and a terrorist group.  Throughout the semester my definition has stayed the same for a couple of different reasons.

            My definition has stayed the same because of the cases discussed and the materials that we have studied and read.  One of the most prominent reasons that I now have for deciding whether or not an attack or entity is a terrorist or not is seeing if the group or power that is committing the action is legitimate or not.  For example, Basher Al-Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria right now.  For this very reason, many countries have elected to not intervene or do anything against Assad because he is the countries legitimate leader.  But we can also view ISIS in the same country and see that many countries have acted against them because ISIS is a non-legitimate power in that country and they have targeted non-combatants to instill fear and terror into people as well as make themselves appear as powerful and strong.  I find that a legitimate power or entity in a country can be moved against in a way that terrorist organization cannot be.  For example, Al Qaeda is hard to fight because they do not have a specific land or country in where they hold themselves they are just worldwide and they have no way for countries to act against them in economic means other than too outright fight them.  Whereas Assad in Syria can face repercussions such as a in funding from organizations such as the UN and other worldwide agencies.    

            Another reason that my definition has stayed the same form the beginning of the semester is that I have not found a compelling enough argument as to why a state such as the United States can be committing terrorism say with drones.  Any action that a state or country does can cause fear and terror to occur.  People in war zones or countries where conflicts are right now would be scared regardless of the method of interference was from the United States.  The use of drones has been criticized by the people in these war zones and said that the U.S. is no better than the terrorist organization that they use these drones against.  But I argue that the citizens of these areas would be in fear from ground troops being stationed there as well.  If we were not using these drones then the alternative would be to have ground units stationed there to deter and carry out counter terrorism offensives against these organizations.         

            The word terrorism gets thrown around a lot these days.  From media outlets to self-proclaimed “counter terrorism experts” to Presidents and Prime Ministers alike.  But what we need to realize before discussing the topic of terrorism is that terrorism itself is not a new topic, idea, or form of aggression.  In fact, terrorism, can date back to around the 17^th century when piracy was around and prospering.  During this time, we witnessed the same end goals and the same violence techniques that we see and associate with terrorist groups in today’s world.  Back then these acts were called piracy instead of terrorism and terrorist groups.  The word terrorist and terrorism might be a relatively new way that we describe a phenomenon but the underlying root and reason for using these words has already existed for centuries.  In accordance with the word terrorism there has also been a rise in the number of self-proclaimed terrorist experts or counter terrorism experts.  No there is test or degree to obtain to make yourself a terrorist expert but there is experience and knowledge of them that can grant certain advisors valuable insight and provide them with a mindset on how to deal with what they receive as a terroristic threat.  Now since there is no test or degree to license these people as experts what gives them the knowledge or know how on what terrorism is and how to deal with it?  Well before the terrorist attacks on 9/11 in the United States a lot of the time instead of using the word terrorist group people would refer to those groups as insurgencies or insurgent groups.  Now the word terrorist group is more commonly used instead of insurgency group and it all depends on who you ask.  A lot of these counter terrorism experts now call themselves that due to their previous knowledge on insurgency groups.  Insurgency groups have been recognized and talked about longer than a terrorist groups has.  Now the similarities between the two groups are almost exactly alike except for their targets and motivation.  But they fight the same way and can have the same defensive tactics put into place that will diminish their affect or stop them entirely.  So, these experts on insurgency groups and counter insurgency are now being referred to as counter terrorist experts.  These “experts” can give people the wrong perception that they know everything there is to know about terrorism and that it is a definitive and clear subject. 

            The definition that I use for terrorism is the action of targeting non-combatant populations by non-state actors to coerce and persuade state actors into an end goal either political or economic.  The reason that I use this is for a couple of different reasons. One, terrorism is in fact a strategy but not one that a country employ.  Countries enter wars and during these wars sometime atrocities are committed and terror itself might seek out from these actions.  But that does not make these countries terrorists or that terrorism is their strategy.  Instead that makes the people committing it or those who have ordered it guilty of war crimes.  The reason that these are called war crimes are because they occur during a war setting and they are not the approved upon manner of dealing with combatants of that country. Two, Countries such as the United States have certain predetermined targets that are designated as combatants of their military force.  The Unites States for example does not simply go around murdering non-combatants to achieve what it wants.  The United States military strikes with extreme precision and certainty of their targets.  Not it is true that sometimes other causalities have occurred, but that was not the intended goal of that operation or strike.  These strikes that are done by other countries as well can include things such as predator drones, covert-operations, and highly skilled outfits of military soldiers.  Using all of which are designated to attack the combatants of those countries head on to end the enemy combatants in that certain situation.  The goal of these operations is not to strike fear and terror into the hearts of the combatants so that the country can get what it wants.  Especially when the goal of these operations is to stop the brutal killings and attacks carried out by these combatants and nothing more.  Lastly, there must be an end goal that Is either political or economic by that entity.  Here is where I draw another line between the United States and terrorist groups.  Let’s take ISIS for example here.  Their end goal is to solidify Syria as their caliphate state and let them run and live by their own interpretation of Islam.  You can also take Al Qaeda for example here and look at what their end goal was.  Al Qaeda’s end goal was to unify the world in their strict interpretation of Islam and to spell out those that do not live by it.  Both goals are political in their perspective to those carrying out these attacks.  Other political motivations for terrorist groups could be things such as the release of prisoners being held by a state.  Examples of economic end goals would be things such as money or land.  And great examples of these happening are around the 17^th century when pirates were abundant and prospering.  Their goals to their attacks and killings were not political.  In fact, when offered some peace treaties or pardons by states some pirates just sailed off and ripped up their pardons.  They did not want anything other than money and thigs of monetary value.  Their end goal was purely about money.  And in comparison, we can look at the United States gain and see the war on terror.  The United States does not want something economical they just want to curb the terrorist groups from committing any more acts of terrorism on the lives of innocent non-combatants. 

            Terrorist groups today have evolved from what they were back then.  But their goals and tactics remain the same.  With no true clear definition of terrorism that is agreed upon it blurs the lines between what is real terrorism and what are people just calling terrorism to get people on their side or their countries point of view.  But I have clearly laid out the goals, means, and methods of the way that countries and insurgent groups operate and differentiate form one another.  The word terrorist may be relatively new but groups who conduct themselves in such a way have been around for a lot longer.  The same method of attacking non-combatants as a non-state actor towards the end goal of something political and or economic will most likely always be around.  But who we define as a terrorist and what we define as a terroristic act does matter.  It defines the method of operation and the way that that group or individual conducts themselves.      

Bibliography

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of       Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar. 2004), pp. 5-13. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735-  2751%28200403%2922%3A1%3C5%3ATTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R Accessed 6 February 2017.
Stampnitzky, Lisa. “Disciplining Terror” How Experts invented Terrorism, CH.1,3.   https://stonehill.ares.atlassys.com/NonCAS/ares.dll?SessionID=F124518937L&Action=10  &Type=10&Value=1149 2Accessed 6 February 2017.

Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and consent: the wars for the twenty-first century. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2008. Accessed 6 February 2017.

Law, Randall David. The Routledge history of terrorism. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015.                                   Accessed 6 February 2017.