The War on Terrorism
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government
We produced about six, and in each and every case they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities…
After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it and you can google into US Code Title 18, Section 2331 and read the US definitions of terrorism
And one of them in here says ‘international terrorism’ means ‘activities that,’ and I quote, ‘appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.’
Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder
Edward Peck
Former US Chief of Mission in Iraq
The first step in addressing terrorism is to determine who the terrorists are, which is not as easy as you might think. Part of the problem is that there is no internationally accepted definition of the term. Indeed, there are more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in use around the world, incorporating more than twenty different criteria. If we cannot agree on what a terrorist is, how do we decide who they are?1
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code [Title 18, Section 2331] as:
Activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended:
- To intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
- To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
- To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
From this definition we can see why Edward Peck might be concerned that the USA’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, or Israel’s bombing of Gaza, could be seen as terrorism. Definitions of terrorism often include the phrase ‘done by a non-state,’ and the term is rarely used to refer to a government or a country, but why should it matter who does it? Is being bombed by government soldiers any less terrifying than by a religious fanatic?2
And why does it have to be aimed at affecting the conduct of a government? Does it make it any less terrifying if the perpetrator has another reason for doing it? Or no reason for doing it? Isn’t it just as terrifying if someone you study or work with goes on a killing spree at your school or workplace? Shouldn’t any act of violence intended to terrorise the general population be considered terrorism?
The dramatization of terrorism and vilification of terrorists by the media has allowed governments to pass a number of draconian laws. Authorities in many democratic states can now monitor our emails and phone calls without a warrant, and detain us for extended periods without charge or a trial.
The severity of terrorist attacks may justify these extreme powers, but if we allow governments to have them then we need to ensure that they are not abused, as appears to have been the case with the USA’s terrorism enhancement laws.
These laws allow a judge to impose far harsher sentences for criminal acts if they are deemed to be terrorism, and for convicted terrorists to be incarcerated in special facilities known as Communication Management Units. CMUs are designed to isolate people considered a risk of inciting terrorism, and contact with the outside world is severely restricted.
Daniel McGowan is an example of the misuse of this law. McGowan was convicted of a series of arson attacks against businesses he believed to be harming animals and the environment. He was sentenced to seven years in prison, which is about the average for the crimes he committed. However, the application of terrorism enhancement to his verdict meant he could have received a far longer sentence, and it allowed for his transfer to the CMU at Marion, Illinois, which duly occurred in May 2008.
Terrorism enhancement was applied to Daniel McGowan because he was a member of the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, both of which are listed as terrorist organizations. In 2001 the FBI listed the Earth Liberation Front as the leading domestic terrorist organization in the US, despite the fact that their actions are staged to cause only economic damage, and they plan their operations carefully to avoid injuring people or animals.3
Listing the ALF and the ELF as terrorist organizations is harsh, but ranking them as worse than those that target people is absurd. According to research by the National Abortion Federation, from 1977 to 2020 anti-abortion groups were responsible for 11 murders, 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 acts of assault, 41 bombings, 173 arson attacks, 3 kidnappings, and 655 anthrax threats. Despite this the FBI have devoted more time and resources to the animal rights activists than the anti-abortionists.4
One reason for this may be that the ALF and ELF threaten the profits of major corporations, which in America’s plutocracy is a greater crime than violence against people (Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for running a Ponzi scheme). Another is that many anti-abortionists are members of fundamental Christian groups that have a lot of political influence.
When it comes to deciding who the terrorists are it is often a matter of opinion, and opinions can vary greatly. The US is classic case of where opinion is divided. Most Americans, and many in the West, believe that the US is leading the fight against terrorism. There are, however, many who believe that the USA’s support of Israel, and its history of installing oppressive governments like those of Castillo Armas and Augusto Pinochet, makes the US the worst terrorist organization in the world.
Opinion on who is a terrorist is also subject to change. Indeed, opinion can change so much that three people once regarded as terrorists have won the Nobel Peace Prize—Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin; Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization; and Nelson Mandela. Labelling Mandela a terrorist was highly controversial. He did not deserve it, and if he did then it suggests that terrorism can be justified.
When Mandela was the leader of the Umkhonto we Sizwe (the ANC’s armed wing, which he co-founded) the attacks he coordinated targeted the government and the military, and they were designed to avoid casualties. Yasser Arafat’s designation as a terrorist is also contentious since he was resisting the occupation of his country, but there is no doubt former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a terrorist.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is also a classic example of the terrorist being in the eye of the beholder. The Israelis claim the Palestinians they kill are terrorists because they target Israeli civilians, whereas Israel only targets what it deems to be ‘legitimate combatants’. The Palestinians, on the other hand, argue that many of the people Israel target, like police officers, are civilians, and the Israelis they target are legitimate targets because they are an occupying force on Palestinian lands.
So who are the real terrorists? It could be argued that they both are, because they are both committing violent acts that cause terror among a civilian population. This is what happens in a war though, and the Israelis and Palestinians are fighting a war over their claim to Palestine. Attacks that are not legitimate acts of war, then, may best be categorized as war crimes, rather than acts of terrorism.
If the ‘real’ terrorists are those who conduct violent acts outside of a legitimate war, then we have to determine what constitutes a legitimate war, and this is a contentious issue. Of course, if the war on terrorism was a legitimate war then the combatants would not be terrorists, they would be soldiers if they adhered to the rules of war, and war criminals if they didn’t. And they would be protected under the Geneva Convention. The ‘war on terrorism’ is not a war though, it is a term coined for propaganda purposes.
So how do we address the problem of terrorism if we cannot define the term or decide who the terrorists are? The answer is surprisingly simple, and there are many things that we can do to improve the situation.
When addressing the problem it is important to remember that terrorism is more about the threat than the act. The death toll from terrorism during the 1970s was just a few hundred to a few thousand a year, and in the 1980s it was several thousand a year. The numbers have been steadily increasing, and during the 2010s the death toll from terrorism averaged 24,000 a year. This is a lot of people, but it is only about 0.05% of total deaths worldwide.5
To put this into perspective, malaria, AIDS, and motor vehicles each kill around a million people a year, and about 400,000 people are murdered. Also, more people are killed on US roads each month than were killed in the 9/11 attacks, on Spanish roads each fortnight than were killed in the March 2004 Madrid bombings, and on British roads each week than were killed in the July 2005 London bombings.6
From a death toll perspective terrorist attacks are a minor problem, but they are dramatic and shocking events that get disproportionate coverage in the news. This is, of course, what the terrorists want. If reports of terrorist attacks were kept out of the news, and had to be actively accessed rather than dominating the headlines, terrorists would be deprived of much of their motivation for using terror tactics.
Convincing the media to do this will be difficult since sensationalist reporting drives their sales. Convincing governments to enforce this approach will also be a problem because the hype has helped them to pass draconian security laws, and shift huge sums of money from the public purse to the corporations that finance their election campaigns.
We have to go after poverty, we have to go after despair, and we have to go after hopelessness
The war on terrorism can only be won by a new commitment to empowering the world’s poor
US Secretary of State Colin Powell in an address to the World Economic Forum on February 1, 2002
General Powell may be correct that poverty and despair are key factors driving terrorism, but eradicating poverty and empowering the world’s poor will not bring an end to terrorism, because the majority of terrorists do not come from a background of poverty.
Terrorists come from all walks of life—they can be male or female, young or old, rich or poor. Most are in their 20s or 30s, and they are often well educated. They tend to have strong family values with doting parents and/or a family of their own. Many are recent converts to their religion, or have changed from non-practicing to a zealous observer of their faith. An immoral or criminal past that they feel the need to atone for is also a common characteristic.7
The key to addressing terrorism is to break the cycle of violence. The western world has to stop using the acts of a fanatical minority as an excuse for invading countries, and listen to the grievances of terrorists groups from people who are not terrorists. Western governments must accept that they have played a significant role in escalating terrorism of late and undo the damage where they can, especially in the Middle East.
It might be necessary to talk to the terrorists themselves, engaging them in a public debate. This is normally deemed anathema, because allowing them to publicly air their views is seen as rewarding their violent acts. This could be a mistake though, because if they have a genuine grievance it can be dealt with, whereas if they are just fanatical arseholes it will expose them as such and they will lose support. Either way it should reduce the violence.
A prime example of where this might work is the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians have many genuine complaints about their treatment by Israel, which most people in the Western world are unaware of. Indeed, few in the West are aware that Israel is an apartheid state. This has allowed Israel to continue to abuse Palestinians unopposed, which in turn generates support for terrorists among ordinary Muslims, not just the radical extremists. If we want to bring Islamic terrorism to an end, then it is essential that we resolve this conflict. The key to this is the US, because it’s their support of Israel that’s maintaining the problem. The US supports Israel partly because of its strategic location, but there is another reason why it does it.
Around one in six US voters belong to fundamentalist churches that teach Christian eschatology. These groups believe Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, are prerequisites to the Second Coming of Christ. To rebuild the Temple the Jews would have to remove the Mosque that currently occupies the site, which is one of Islam’s most sacred places. This would surely start a holy war, but a holy war, with Jesus leading the way, is what the Christian fanatics want.
And herein lies the true problem with Israel. The occupation of Palestine has been a serious concern among Muslims around the world for an entire generation, which makes it a major motivator for the support of terrorism. And, while it is of little concern to the majority of people in the West, there are a small but significant number of religious fanatics that will not allow the US government to withdraw its support of Israel, let alone condemn the Israelis for their war crimes.
Resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict might be an essential step in solving the problem of Islamic terrorism, but it won’t bring an end to terrorism, because Muslims are not the only religious group that engage in acts of terrorism.
According to the FBI’s database, there were more Jewish than Islamic acts of terrorism in the US from 1980 to 2005 (7% Jewish, 6% Islamic), and the vast majority of terror attacks in the US were committed by Christians (this does not include mass shootings). Prior to 9/11 the worst act of terrorism in the US was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, a Christian fundamentalist and decorated veteran of the first Gulf War.8
Endnote
The current approach to terrorism may have been effective in limiting the damage to western countries (although this is debatable) but it is very expensive. It is also doomed to failure since it neglects to address the underlying cause, and acts of extraordinary rendition and incarceration without trial in places like Guantanamo Bay just make the situation worse.
According to a Brown University Watson Institute report released in November 2019, by the end of 2020 the cost to US taxpayers of anti-terrorist programs since the 9/11 attacks was $5.4 trillion. This includes Homeland Security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not the $1 trillion required to provide for veterans of the wars. These wars have also cost the lives of around 800,000 people.9
References
- Schmid, A. P. Jongman, A. J. et al. ‘Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature’ Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988, p. 5-6, footnote 10.
- Williamson, M. ‘Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001’ Ashgate Publishing, 2009, p. 38.
- Potter, W. ‘Green is the New Red’ City Lights Books, San Francisco, 2011, p. 71, 184.
- Doan, A. E. ‘Opposition and Intimidation: The abortion wars and strategies of political harassment’ University of Michigan, 2007, p. 23, 110.
- https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism#how-many-people-are-killed-by-terrorists-worldwide
- https://ourworldindata.org/hiv-aids#almost-1-million-people-die-from-hiv-aids-each-year-in-some-countries-it-s-the-leading-cause-of-death
- Gupta, D. K. ‘Who are the Terrorists?’ Chelsea House, Philadelphia, 2006, p. 87.
- www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005
- www.brown.edu/news/2019-11-13/costsofwar