Transcript Terrorism Defined - Virginia Military Institute

Terrorism Defined
PO 483: The Politics of Terrorism
Why is Terrorism Difficult to
Define?
Moral Repugnance and Illegality
“One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s
Freedom Fighter”
Tactics Sometimes Used by “Legitimate”
Actors
Variability of Meanings and Connotations in
Different Eras
The Etymology of Terrorism Can Expand the
Class of Relevant Behavior
Conflation of Strategies
Hoffman’s Definition
Terrorism is:
Ineluctably political in aims and motives
Violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
Designed to have far-reaching psychological
repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
Conducted by either an organization with an
identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell
structure (whose members wear no uniform or
identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small
collection of individuals directly influenced,
motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or
example of some existent terrorist movement and/or
its leaders
Perpetrated by a sub-national group or non-state
entity
Examples of Difficulty in
Defining Terrorism
Main Question: Is a Turn Away From
Morality and Objectivity Justified?
Argument: ANY Moralistic or Subjective
Component in the Definition of the
Term Leads to Such a Degree of
“Conceptual Stretching” That
Confusion Reigns
Byford:
Justness of ends and means affects the
thinking of people and governments
concerning political violence
Three schools of definition of terrorism
(legality – state as monopolist;
etymological; tactical)
Whether ends and means are just
should determine how we think about
politically violent groups
Byford
BUT – using the example of the US’s
response to the terrorist attacks of
9/11, he illustrates that a focus on
morality (and the morality of means
especially) can dangerously obscure
the interests of the parties involved
Byford
The decision of supporting and opposing causes is much more
complex than a reliance on morality as a guide can provide
His answer is that INTEREST, ENDS, AND MEANS should be
the ordered guide by which the US should conduct foreign
policy
The administration’s language – that it is taking the moral high
ground in a war against terrorism – is bound to lead to failure
no matter what the outcome, because of the complexity of
associating moral considerations with a clear conception of
interest and, further, the wrong-headedness of appearing to
place morals above interest
Further, we need support in our attempt to bolster national
security; hypocrisy based on moralizing will not help us in our
quest to do so.
Byford
So –
Morality can be an integral part in determining which
groups/states should and should not get our support
However, basing our understanding of our enemies
and our defensive rhetoric and attempt to defeat
them on our conception of the justness of their ends
and means hinders us in our attempt to rally support
and effectively focus our efforts.
Thus, making problems more complex by focusing
on moral considerations sometimes clouds our
understanding of the gravity or true meaning or
those problems and our likely responses.
Harmon
Political scientist
Starts from a moral absolutist position (there is a
clear distinction between right and wrong, and this
distinction should be applied to our understanding
of reality) – speaks of an objective “moral law”
Terrorism is the deliberate murder, maiming, and
menacing of civilians, not combatants; thus,
terrorists’ claims that their acts are forced upon
them because are in the midst of a “civil war” are
false (“abolition of innocence”); it’s really hatred that
guides terrorists, not aims
Violence should, if necessary, be aimed at only
those who are in war zones
Harmon
However, he runs into some problems
Difficulty in differentiating between innocents and noninnocents (Beirut attack was terrorism, King David Hotel was
not)
Related issues regarding existence of state of war (how is it
defined? Claims terrorism must be seen as war after some
point)
Right of rebellion: Some rebellion is just, but not if it uses
illegitimate means in the absence of “actual” injustice

Mirrors Byford’s view of relative importance of ends over means,
but seemingly falls into the trap that Byford identifies; his
treatment of American revolutionary activities implies that its
means were beyond reproach, but this is likely inaccurate (Sons of
Liberty)
Generally state-centric view (legality legitimizes action); given
moral bankruptcy of terrorism, it would seem he would
condone almost any means to stop it – which would seem to
negate the importance of morality in response altogether
(tautology)
Conclusion
Morality is important in the grand scheme. It
provides us with a crucial framework by which to live
our lives. But, for the purposes of analyzing
terrorism as a subject, and of trying to enact
counterterrorist policy, morality should be left out of
the equation, because it makes the problem of
definition intractable and hinders our ability to think
strategically about the subject. Our definition of
terrorism is thus strictly tactical and amoral.
Though a lot of violent activities are deserving of
study, many of them cannot be usefully considered
political terrorism. Whether it is apolitical or
involves strategy or tactics that are differ from the
class of activity we are studying, we will not include
it in our analyses (slight exception - millenarianism).