catapult magazine

Bush said today that “terror is not the tool of the free.” Turn the sentence around and it reads, “terror is the tool of the unfree.” Somehow I doubt if Bush thought through the implications of that sentence.

I guess we need to make a distinction between state terror and non-state terror. The Uzbek government does not support international terrorism as far as I know, whereas elements of the Saudi Arabian monarchy do. Syria also supports international terrorism, but North Korea doesn’t. On the other hand, the North Korean and Uzbek governments terrorize their people.

I think Anton was referring mainly to non-state, international terror—the kind practiced by Al Qaida and Al Aqsa. And I don’t think this kind of terrorism emerges from one particular type of governmental system. Rather it emerges in individuals (and groups) who come to believe that terror is the only way they can make a difference. And some governments like Syria feed those feelings and capitalize on them. Any thoughts on that?

I guess I’d agree that that specific kind of terror is not specific to a certain kind of government, but a specific kind of person. (And, as you say various governments, of various styles, try to use those people)

Dan, thanks for the outline and the reminder of the importance of distinctions. I hadn’t really considered the incidents you mentioned as acts of terrorism.

You call for nuance with respect to Bush, but to support your argument, you are willing to use a broad definition for terrorism that lacks nuance. I’m not sure how many people would share your view that the incidents you mentioned qualify as terrorism.

Terrorism is commited by people who target innocent civilians because they are easy to target and produce dynamic results. They tend to use the element of surprise in order to create panic and paralysis. Their acts often have the element of drama; they are intended for a public audience. Thus, one of the things terrorists consider is the presence of a media to broadcast terrorism. They also consider the magnitude of the act, how much damage can be done. Finally, terrorists acts are often considered illegal in international courts. In fairness, this last point is tenuous, since the US is currently critical of international courts because they worry about exactly which acts will be found guilty. Still, at the very least, it demonstrates the need for nuance when discussing “terrorism.” I think your use thus far has been a little simplistic.

Also, I’d like to challenge your earlier statement that Saddam kept his country free from terrorism. Atlantic Monthly recently published an interesting article on “democide” which featured states that have killed off political opposition. Saddam’s Iraq was on the list. In Iraq, 1 percent of the population has been killed off for political reasons. Would this not fit the defintion of terror you offered? (Again, in fairness, I need to recheck the dates of this study, but I think those dates were recent).

My point, here, is just that with a broad definition of terrorism all sorts of atrocities get labelled terrorism, and it becomes difficult to say anything meaningful about it. At any rate, to keep the discussion of Bush’s statement, as you reminded us about the connection between freedom and terror, it would be useful to consider what Bush might have meant by terrorism, which I presume would be more nuanced than the yourdictionary.com definition. In connection with his definition, it would be interesting to know if he would argue that if the Middle East became more free, there would be a concomitant drop in terrorism from that region. I suspect he would argue this in the affirmative. Comments?

I’ve copied your description of terrorism below for easy reference.

If terrorism only targets civilians, then most of the terrorism in Iraq isn’t terrorism. The targets are largely police and coalition soldiers. The “innocent” civilians targeted are cooperating politicians and Iraqi policemen. The way you’ve defined terrorism doesn’t allow you to call much of what’s going on in Iraq as terror. Shooting down military helicopters; killing 17 Italian soldiers with a bomb; shooting American soldiers and dragging their bodies through the streets—none of those are terrorism according to you because they target soldiers. You and Mr. Bush would disagree on that point.

Frankly I wish I could try to pin Bush down on his definition of terrorism, because he uses it for pretty much anyone who attacks American troops. I’ll propose some definitons:

1. primary terrorism: acts of violence which aim to kill maximum numbers of people or incur maximum damage to property—the primary aim being to create a sense of public fear and vulnerability.

2. secondary terrorism: acts of violence committed by non-military elements against military units and their collaborators. The aim of secondary terrorists is to defeat the military in questions.

3. state terrorism: acts of violence committed by governments against their own people or against innocent civilians elsewhere.

Can we work with those definitions? Anton, you think terror can be boiled down to primary terrorism, right? Bush lumps secondary and primary terrorism together.

Concerning Iraq being free from terrorism under Hussein, I’d say it was largely free from primary and secondary terror. Obviously there was plenty of state terror, as you say the Atlantic Monthly pointed out. Iraq also supported primary and secondary terrorist acts in Israel, which I would argue are in response to repeated acts of state terror against Palestinians.

In response to your last question, I think you’re right. That’s what Bush does believe. But Laryn and I recently concluded that terrorism doesn’t necessarily arise from ‘unfree societies.’ It arises everywhere. What do you think?

By the way, I just noticed that even FoxNews now refers to Iraqi insurgents as “guerrillas” rather than terrorists.

In the speech from Baghdad, Bush referred to the same group as "a band of thugs and assassins, “terrorists,” and “Saddam’s henchmen.” He drew a direct line between secondary terror and state terror when he referred to “the people who terrorized [Iraq] for years and are still killing innocent Iraqis.”

If you think my arguments lack nuance, what do you make of the president complete disregard for distinctions?

Dan, I am still grappling with exactly how to define terrorism. I didn’t mean to propose a defition of terror, but provide some nuances that seemed to be missing from our discussions.

One of the central issues that we are still ignoring is the question of legality of action. Now, it may depend on who is speaking, whether a particular action is legal or not, but illegality seems to be part of the implications of the term “terrorism.” Your definitions make no mention of it whatsoever.

I think it would be hard to define the concept of terrorism. The problem is that the word takes on different shades of meaning depending on context. Also, some acts more readily qualify as terrorism than others. The acts of 9-11 are widely regarded as terrorist activities. It’s questionable how many of the US acts, or perhaps more accurately, many of the acts perpetuated by groups that the US has funded and supported, would qualify as terrorism. Actually, on the definitions you offered, most of the incidents you called terrorism no longer qualify, since the US did not directly perpetuate the acts of terrorism. At the same time, on your definition, certain acts which I’ve never heard called terrorism would qualify as terrorism. Most acts of war on your definitions would now qualify as primary terrorism. Yet, we make a distinction between war and terrorism, the former being legal, the latter being illegal.

I do appreciate the nuance you are aiming for in our discussion. It helps me to know where you’re coming from.

How does the issue of legality factor into your definitions?

I think you’re saying that Bush has referred to different groups collectively, as though they were actually one group. You’re saying that Bush has treated the people who are now insurgents as though they were the same people who committed state terrorism.

I’ve only heard a little about who is perpetuating the acts of violence in Iraq. It seems to me that there are three possibilities:

1) The insurgents are the same people who committed state terrorism formerly.
2) The insurgents are comprised of two groups, one of which formerly committed state terrorism, and the other of which did not formerly commit state terrorism.
3) The insurgents are comprised only of people who did not commit state terrorism formerly.

You seem convinced of 2) or 3). You seem to think Bush asserted 1).

What if 2) is correct, as seems most likely? What if the insurgents are certainly comprised of some of the people who formerly committed state terrorism? If this is the case, then, Bush was not wholly inaccurate in saying that they are still at work killing innocent Iraqis. Would if, in the context of the war in Iraq, he has these people primarily in mind?

Bush isn’t being as nuanced as he could be. Still, there are precious few words he and his speechwriters can put in a speech composed for the media. Nuance is a luxury of having more words, more time, and speaking to a people who have greater attention spans.

What does your critique prove? I don’t see it’s force.

I critique you, and you critique me, because we’ve got the luxury of nuance. But you can’t turn around and critique Bush as though he had that luxury. Again, we’ve got to make distinctions and even critique with nuance.

You’re critiques of Bush in this thread have lacked nuance, distinction, and sympathetic criticism.

Concerning legality:

This is really really complicated. I’d rather not talk about it and here’s why:

States decide what is legal and illegal. According to the laws of Iraq, Saddam’s state terror was legal and the American invasion of Iraq was illegal. According to international law, the invasion of Iraq was also illegal as Iraq had not attacked anybody. So if we want to talk about legality, there’s a pretty good case to be made that the Iraqi insurgents are well within their legal rights to attack occupying forces. Whose law are we talking about? In Iraq where there is no constitution, the question of legality is better steered clear of at this moment.

Generally within a nation state, state violence is legal and violence against the state is illegal.

I should have included in my definition of primary terror “acts of violence committed by non-military units”. Primary terror is always illegal. Secondary terror is much closer to war, which puts it in a different category in terms of legality. State terror is generally legal in that country, but illegal according to international law.

I’m not sure why you feel that legality is such an important factor in defining terrorism. Maybe you can explain…

In that case, Saddam’s Iraq is absolved of any links to terror! Saddam merely paid money to Palestinian terrorists—Iraq didn’t do it.