I'm really excited to debate this topic because I feel it is one of the most pertinent to our time. Ever since the attacks on 9/11, terrorism has been at the forefront of many of the policies of the United States, both foreign and domestic.
Terrorism has been painted in the most negative of lights; an evil attack by a foreigner on a nation's home soil. However, it is defined by the United States Department of Defense as, "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives (FM 100-20, Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict, 5 December 1990; and Joint Pub 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12 April 2001, as amended through 9 June 2004)." There is no rhetoric of good vs. evil in the DoD definition; merely lawful vs. unlawful. And as many terroristic actions are directed against a State, of course they are going to be deemed unlawful.
Terrorism is not only of the religious extremist variety, as the DoD definition clearly demonstrates. Think about the Irish Republican Army operating in Great Britain, or the Chechens in Russia. These factions are one page in the history book away from being seen as "freedom fighters" instead of "terrorists". In fact, by the DoD definition, the United States itself was guilty of terrorism during the Revolutionary period- Tarring and Feathering, looting of the homes of British officials and the like. So then, are there circumstances under which terrorism is an acceptable practice? Are there really black and white definitions of what constitutes terrorism as opposed to expression, or revolution?
Next: Can Terrorism ever truly work? If a State caves under terroristic demands, won't that just encourage the terrorists to keep demanding more? A specific example: If a State gives in to the separatist demands of a terrorist faction and gives them independence, doesn't that just open the door for more separatist factions to demand legitimacy? States, it would seem, have much more at stake than just each individual terrorist's demands; one sign of weakness and the floodgates are opened for infinite others. Does that mean that a State can never give in to a single terroristic demand, making terrorism an illegitimate form of negotiation?
Even though I framed the topic from a United States standpoint, I'd love to hear from people who have a global opinion on the issue as well. Specific examples and well-cited facts are encouraged, but not necessarily a requisite for debate...enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Excellent topic! I wrote on this issue when I was taking Contemporary Moral Issues in Germany back in 1994--so I take pride in having been well ahead of the policy-makers on the whole topic of terrorism. I was dealing with the issue as an Intelligence Analyst for the US Army at the time, and everyone else was still reeling from the fall of the USSR and the government was trying to make China into the next big scary enemy. I said at the time (and still do) that in fact, China's preferred method of Global Domination is via the shower-shoe market. But I digress...
You chose a good source for your definition of terrorism, although the US Government still does not have a unified definition for use by all it's assorted alphabet soup agencies--thus what the CIA considers perfectly acceptable can be considered terrorism by the Department of Justice; questionable by the Department of Defense; and so forth.
To go back to my fundamental principle, terrorism is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, and thus can never be considered justifiable or morally acceptable.
But to answer the second question: "Can it succeed?"
Define success. Depending on that definition, perhaps it can. Of course, you run into the perpetual problem of shifting definition. Not sure if the quote is as well known amongst today's crowd, but here goes:
"Why does treason never prosper? Because if it succeeds, none dare call it treason."
Thus, if Terrorism succeeds, then the actions the winner took are no longer considered terrorism--while those of the loser are.
Some things to understand about terrorism:
First, you have to understand that the object is not a body count--it is to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the survivors and general populace. The victims are merely victims--the target is the TV Viewing Audience.
Thus, terrorists lose if you aren't scared. If you are, they win.
Second, the short term objective of terrorists (if they are in opposition to the established government) is to incite the government into a general security crack-down, and disproportionate response. This serves two purposes--it makes the government look ineffective and stupid; and it makes the government look even more tyrannical than it perhaps was before. Thus, the terrorists gain sympathy and potential recruits. Add to this the effects of standard psychological issues such as cognitive dissonance and the "Stockholm Syndrome" and things like that, and you see how effectively the terrorist can use the responses of the government against it.
I'll cut this here for brevity.
I don't have anything relevant to say on this issue, but another one i would like to see discussed is the entity of the state- perhaps a phenomenology thereof. That is, how does the state exist? Who is morally responsible for atrocities committed in the name of the state? etc.
"
To go back to my fundamental principle, terrorism is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, and thus can never be considered justifiable or morally acceptable.
"
Hasn't an existing government already violated the Non-Aggression Principle by forcing itself upon its citizens? If so, what recourse do said citizens have to get rid of that government, except to violate the Non-Aggression Principle themselves?
[Hasn't an existing government already violated the Non-Aggression Principle by forcing itself upon its citizens?]
Yes--Governments by their very nature violate the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
[If so, what recourse do said citizens have to get rid of that government, except to violate the Non-Aggression Principle themselves?]
The NAP applies only to the INITIATION of force. Retaliatory or defensive force is not aggression under the NAP. Thus, it is acceptable to use force in self defense and/or defense of others--and by extension in defense of property and rights.
However, said force must only be used against aggressors--as soon as there is "collateral damage" the user of force has committed an act of aggression. For example, it would not be justified for you to drop a 2000lb bomb on the house of a government agent who committed an act of aggression, if by doing so you injure innocent family members and/or neighbors. However, were you to shoot him while he was in the act of committing an act of aggression, and did not endanger bystanders while doing so, that would be morally acceptable.
[That is, how does the state exist?]
The state is actually a fictional construct--much like a corporation. It is essentially a group of individuals who perpetuate a fiction for the purposes of convincing their victims that their actions are "Just" and "Legitimate."
[Who is morally responsible for atrocities committed in the name of the state?]
Individuals are responsible for their own actions and decisions. "I was only following orders" or "I was only doing my job" are not legitimate moral defenses (as was seen at Nuremburg). One could, perhaps, argue that one committed certain acts under duress, but that is a slightly different issue.
Post a Comment