The War on Terror is Terrorism

Andrew Gillis

Blog Post

4/23/17

            When examining the US War on Terror, it is not usually talked about in a positive way. The plan and the tactics factor into a seemingly negative view by the public. But what might perhaps be a larger conflict amongst opinions is whether the US War on Terror should be considered terrorism. Even though the US is a state, the War on Terror is in fact terrorism and should be viewed that way because of the use of drones and torture.

            One of the largest reasons for why the War on Terror should be considered terrorism is because of the use of drones. The use of drones has several aspects that would make it a tool of terrorism. First, it strikes fear not only into the target but also civilian populations because a strike could happen at any moment. There is no warning for when a drone strike will occur, so people live in fear that one could happen at any time. They might see a drone flying over, and it might only be for surveillance, but they will be thrown into panic because they might fear that they could be attacked from it. Second, the target is not always someone who has committed a terrorist attack because it might be a preemptive strike. Signature strikes, which are typically broad, kill individuals based on patterns in behavior that might be consistent with terror activity. So essentially, they target individuals that may or may not be directly involved in the activity but because they might be they are targeted by these strikes. This is like terrorists because they often attack people who are not directly responsible or involved with what they are directing their attacks at. This brings up the final aspect of why the use of drones in the War on Terror is terrorism because of the “precision” of the strikes which often have collateral damage. When it comes to civilian casualties regarding the drone strikes, the numbers are highly debated. The administration that does the strikes often comes out with an extremely low count, and changes the definition of a civilian / noncombatant. However, organizations such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism claim that the count is much higher than reported. Without getting into which count is correct, at a minimum there are more civilian casualties than there should be. Part of terrorism is that there are civilian casualties, and if that is going to be an indicator of terrorism the use of drones should fall under that category.

            Another example of how the War on Terror can be considered terrorism is the use of torture as a tactic. Torture was used to get information out of terrorists or individuals who were suspected to be terrorists. There were individuals who were trying to legally justify the use of torture but using techniques that were in a legal grey area, and by debating whether the Geneva Convention should be followed. These tactics are basically over kill, and studies have shown that torture techniques are not as effective as some believe. Torture created a sense of fear that if you were arrested or taken into custody by Americans you would be tortured even if you were innocent. Torture contributed to an atmosphere of fear that the War on Terror created.

            Simply put, the War on Terror should be considered terrorism even though it was conducted by a state actor. Regardless of who commits the act, if they are terroristic thee actor should be considered a terrorist or their actions terroristic. Drone strikes are terroristic because they strike fear into people and drone strikes also have civilian casualties. Torture is also a tactic that can be considered terroristic because of the nature of it and again how it strikes fear into people. If these acts are considered without knowing the actor, the acts and actor would most likely both be considered terrorism / terrorists. However, because the War on Terror is being conducted by the US and its allies, people do not want to label it terrorism, even though it is.