TERRORISM: THEIRS AND OURS

By Eqbal Ahmad

(A Presentation at the University of Colorado, Boulder, October 12, 1998)



In the 1930s and 1940s, the Jewish underground in Palestine was described as "TERRORIST." Then new things happened.

By 1942, the Holocaust was occurring, and a certain liberal sympathy with the Jewish people had built up in the Western world. At that point, the terrorists of Palestine, who were Zionists, suddenly started to be described, by 1944-45, as "freedom fighters." At least two Israeli Prime Ministers, including Menachem Begin, have actually, you can find in the books and posters with their pictures, saying "Terrorists, Reward This Much." The highest reward I have noted so far was 100,000 British pounds on the head of Menachem Begin, the terrorist.

Then from 1969 to 1990 the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, occupied the center stage as the terrorist organization. Yasir Arafat has been described repeatedly by the great sage of American journalism, William Safire of the New York Times, as the "Chief of Terrorism." That's Yasir Arafat.

Now, on September 29, 1998, I was rather amused to notice a picture of Yasir Arafat to the right of President Bill Clinton. To his left is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netan

Subject: Letter to the Editor (numerous papers)



Racially Profiling Osama bin Laden

Had American Law Enforcement and Security personnel, felt more comfortable utilizing a necessary Law Enforcement tool; I believe the World Trade Center bombing never would have occurred. That necessary tool is called "Racial

Profiling."

We need to use discernment. The word discernment means "to discriminate."

Although not to discriminate based solely on race. However, we should discriminate between what appears to be 'right or wrong,' 'what is good or evil' or 'what is suspicious and is what is not.' That's how quality arrests are made. It is a useful tool to impede terrorism as well.

Thanks to the A.C.L.U, the liberal legislators and the 'Rev' Jackson's, and poor immigration policies.

Even Osama bin Laden's Regime stated our immigration policies were liberal. American Law Enforcement's hands are tied.

Bill Rhetts

Former police officer

Ready for combat

PO Box 8668

Redlands, CA 92374

In reading the above post it seems that some are willing to turbn the US into a police state. I'm too 'American' to stand for that myself. I'm not ready. Should we succumb to that kind of rhetoric we are no better than the Taliban and those terrorists, whomever they are, would have won. Stop being so quick to hand them over victory. For me America will stand as a symbol of freedom even as it sometimes has difficulty acting the part.

The professor complains that the government never defines "terrorism" in any of the "more than 20" (goodness, so thorough) papers he's read on the subject.

However, I found the following Department of Defense definition by simply typing "definition + terrorism" on a netscape search.

The DOD 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."

This definition was carefully crafted to distinguish between terrorism and other kinds of violence. The act of terrorism is defined independent of the cause that motivates it. People employ terrorist violence in the name of many causes. The tendency to label as terrorism any violent act of which we do not approve is erroneous. Terrorism is a specific kind of violence.

The official definition says that terrorism is calculated. Terrorists generally know what they are doing. Their selection of a target is planned and rational. They know the effect they seek. Terrorist violence is neither spontaneous nor random. Terrorism is intended to produce fear; by implication, that fear is engendered in someone other than the victim. In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience.

Finally, the definition addresses goals. Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or

ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by

religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views. The objectives of terrorism distinguish it from other violent acts aimed at personal gain, such as criminal violence. However, the definition permits including violence by organized crime when it seeks to influence government policy. Some drug cartels and other international criminal organizations engage in political action when their activities influence governmental functioning. The essence of terrorism is the intent to induce fear in someone other than its victims to make a government or other audience change its political behavior.

Terrorism is common practice in insurgencies, but insurgents are not necessarily terrorists if they comply with the rules of war and do not engage in those forms of violence identified as terrorist acts. While the legal distinction is clear, it rarely inhibits terrorists who convince themselves that their actions are justified by a higher law. Their single-minded dedication to a goal, however poorly it may be articulated, renders legal sanctions relatively ineffective. In contrast, war is subject to rules of international law. Terrorists recognize no rules. No person, place, or object of value is immune from terrorist attack. There are no innocents.

This situation did not always prevail. Throughout history, extremists have practiced terrorism to generate fear and compel a change in behavior. Frequently, terrorism was incidental to other forms of violence, such as war or insurgency. Before the nineteenth century, terrorists usually granted certain categories of people immunity from attack. Like other warriors, terrorists recognized innocents-- people not involved in conflict. Terrorists usually excluded women, children, and the elderly from target lists. For example, in late nineteenth-century Russia, radicals planning the assassination of Tsar Alexander II aborted several planned attacks because they risked harming innocent people. Old-school terrorism was direct; it intended to produce a political effect through the injury or death of the victim.

The development of bureaucratic states led to a profound change in terrorism. Modern

governments have a continuity that older, personalistic governments did not. Terrorists

found that the death of a single individual, even a monarch, did not necessarily produce the

policy changes they sought. Terrorists reacted by turning to an indirect method of attack.

By the early twentieth century, terrorists began to attack people previously considered

innocents to generate political pressure. These indirect attacks create a public atmosphere

of anxiety and undermine confidence in government. Their unpredictability and apparent

randomness make it virtually impossible for governments to protect all potential victims. The

public demands protection that the state cannot give. Frustrated and fearful, the people then

demand that the government make concessions to stop the attacks.

Modern terrorism offers its practitioners many advantages. First, by not recognizing innocents, terrorists have an infinite number of targets. They select their target and determine when, where, and how to attack. The range of choices givs terrorists a high probability of success with minimum risk. If the attack goes wrong or fails to produce the intended results, the terrorists can deny responsibility.

Ironically, as democratic governments become more common it may be easier for terrorists to operate. The terrorist bombings of the New York City World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City Federal Building prove how easy it is for terrorists to operate in a free and democratic society. Authoritarian governments whose populace may have a better reason to revolt may also be less constrained by requirements for due process and impartial justice when combatting terrorists.

As commanders and staffs address terrorism, they must consider several relevant characteristics. First is that anyone can be a victim. (Some terrorists may still operate under cultural restraints, such as a desire to avoid harming women, but the planner cannot count on that. Essentially, there are no innocents.) Second, attacks that may appear to be senseless and random are not. To the perpetrators, their attacks make perfect sense. Acts such as bombing public places of assembly and shooting into crowded restaurants heighten public anxiety. This is the terrorists' immediate objective. Third, the terrorist needs to publicize his attack. If no one knows about it, it will not produce fear. The need for publicity often drives target selection; the greater the symbolic value of the target, the more publicity the attack brings to the terrorists and the more fear it generates. Finally, a leader planning for combatting terrorism must understand that he cannot protect every possible target all the time. He must also understand that terrorists will likely shift from more protected targets to less protected ones. This is the key to defensive measures.

No doubt the above poster read the DOD report on terrorism. I can tell by the copy on my desk (downloaded from the web) that he/she then copied large portions of the report to supply us all with the governments take on a definition of terrorism. I have no problem with the copying but it lacks two important elements of context,

First, the report was roundly condemned by the international press as self-serving. Terrorism is defined by the US as acts that are easily attributed to other people. There may be state-sponsored terrorism but when it is carried out by the state itself then it ceases to bcome terrorism. Hence the original objection (above) that the word is not accuratly defined. I was first alerted to this critique by an article that appeared in the Guardian. It could probably still be found on line.

Secondly, the same report that we read so much from above also insists that there is a steady downward trend in incidents of terrorism. The implication is that with the proper monies thrown at the problem we could bring it under control sometime in the near future.