HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 27, 2006 There has been some debate lately over what Terrorism really is and who is and isn’t practicing it. There are some that would use semantics, singling out the root word terror for emphasis, to make the claim that virtually any form of combat or warfare can be considered terrorism. After all, isn’t war terrible? I would never claim that the mothers of fallen soldiers or the family members of non-combatants don’t feel terrorized. But does that make the combat tactics, or the underlying motivations of those tactics “Terrorism”? I mention the underlying motivations for tactics because in order to discuss the usage of the word terrorism, motivations and reasons are critical. When considering terrorism as a concept, the reasoning behind the adoption of certain tactics, are at least or in some cases more important than the tactics themselves. Also I want to draw attention to the fact that to give a simple definition for the word terrorism in a line or two would never be sufficient to really have an understanding of what is meant. What other “ism” could you ever do that for? To start out lets discuss who is practicing terrorism and why. Islamic radicals are practicing terrorism to be sure, but it’s a practice widely in use so they can hardly take all of the blame. The truth is that any small group of unusually zealous people, with limited resources, and goals far beyond those resources, has at least considered terrorism. Many of those groups succumbed to the temptation. The reason is obvious. If you have a limited pool of resources you want to use them to the greatest effect possible, and at the same time keep your own losses to a minimum. That means two things. You have to strike where you think you can either hurt some one the most, or get the most attention. At the same time you have to pick a target that is least likely to be able to defend against your attack. You as the leader of a small group do not want to send your men on a single suicide attack on a large military installation. You are going to advocate a number of small bombings on the civilian population, or maybe some kidnappings and beheadings. Attacks like those will gather a lot of attention and at the same time carry the least risk of getting any of your operatives killed. Of course in the case of a suicide bombing your operative is trying to get killed, but in that case it is the garnering of media and government attention that is considered more important. Also notice that it is never the terrorist groups leaders or administrators that are wearing vests, only recruits that are considered expendable. I don’t intend that as a cheap shot to call the terrorist leaders cowards but to point out that the suicide bombers themselves are seen more as ammunition than actual members of the group and so the principle of the conservation of limited resources holds. Aircraft bombings, hijackings, kidnappings, targeted murder of selected government officials, all of these attacks fit the profile of a small group of people selecting targets for maximum effect and minimum risk. Large body counts are a welcome windfall to terrorists, but the attempt at large body counts is not part of what characterizes terrorism by itself since important symbolic places and people are also lucrative targets for the attention they command. I continue by noting that while the description given above is accurate, it is not yet clear enough to be considered complete. Now that we know better what terrorism is, it is important that we discuss what it is not. Guerilla warfare is not terrorism. The distinction between the two is important. Guerilla warfare is similar in that is it also usually characterized by a small group being in opposition to a much larger one. But in this case who is and is not fair game for being a target is a little more clearly defined. By that I mean that both of the opposing forces know that they are fighting each other. That doesn’t always mean that both, or either of the opposing forces is any governments military, though commonly at least one of them is. I mean that both of the groups are clearly defined organizations whose members are aware that they are engaging in combat. This differs from a civilian population that is just going about their business, but would include civilians that are members of combatant organizations. Guerilla warfare attacks also have as their goal the greatest effect for the least risk, but again there is a slight difference between it and terrorism. In terrorism one of the desired effects is commonly the simple need to draw attention to a cause or the perceived plight of a people. With guerilla warfare the effect desired is usually of a more directly military nature. Whether it be attrition, disruption of supply lines, the assassination of important opposing group leaders, or the destruction of materials and supplies, the intended effect is much more focused on the opposing group itself. While these tactics can be very frustrating, and demoralizing for the targeted group, that is in fact the intended effect, and these are legitimate military tactics. To give a current example I site the common Iraqi insurgent tactic of planting roadside bombs for passing military units. I am quite sure that the prospect of being killed by a roadside bomb is not one that any of the members of the US military relishes. But since they are members of the military, engaging in combat against insurgent forces this tactic by itself is not terrorist, but simple warfare. If they were to start planting roadside bombs targeting Iraqi’s that are participating in the election and governmental process, that would be terrorism, and the perpetrators would then be terrorists. The groups planting roadside bombs targeting military units are in all probability, already terrorist groups, but that does not by default make all of their activities terrorist in nature. US military units are aware of what guerilla warfare tactics are and how to practice them, but how do our current tactics in Iraq and elsewhere differ from both terrorism and guerilla warfare? The difference again starts with the motivation and ends in the tactics and targets. The US military is aware that in most commonly used metrics it is a superior fighting force. I say that not out of my own pride but as a statement of fact. Military leaders do not care to waste their men or resources any more than anyone else, but their position of superiority gives them a freedom in operational planning and tactics that the insurgents do not enjoy. It means that US and other coalition units are not afraid to attack concentrations of insurgents directly. By directly I only mean we don’t use hit and run tactics, since air strikes and other forms of indirect fire are of course used when deemed appropriate. Coalition units do not plant roadside bombs for a number of reasons. One, that is simply not how you properly employ a military force of that size and complexity. When you are planning a military strategy you do not waste a force with the kinds of capabilities that the US military brings to the table, chipping away at individual insurgents vehicles. Two, contrary to what some in opposition to the war would have you believe, the military really does take great pains to minimize civilian losses in the pursuit of insurgents. Similar to wars past, insurgent forces blend in well with the civilian population since they do not wear clearly identifiable uniforms. They also do not drive easily identifiable vehicles. This makes the problem of singling out combatant vehicles for attack too difficult, and the risk of blowing up innocents too high to consider this a viable tactic. It has been pointed out that family members of killed non-combatants, or even combatants, would probably feel terrorized and so would very likely consider US military units terrorist. However, as heartless as this may sound, their grief would not make them correct. I do not in any way intend to minimize their suffering, but their suffering is what ensures that they are in no mood to analyze the tactics and motivations of coalition units in the area. Looked at objectively it is plain that Coalition military tactics and procedures do not bear the mark of terrorist operations. Does that mean that we never kill innocents? Of course not, that is addressed below. But the facts of the situation make it clear that the US military and our allies are not engaged in terrorism, and so whatever reason you might propose for opposition to the war, this cannot be one of them. In an urban warfare environment, non-combatants get killed. This is a reality of the art, unavoidable. This country’s military is not the first to run into this problem, but we are one of the first to feel any sort of remorse over the fact. In wars past the hysteria caused by indiscriminate targeting of the civilian population was considered a desirable effect. The United States, in contrast, spends billions trying to ensure it happens to the smallest extent possible. We enact tactics and procedures that virtually guarantee enemy units get the first shot, and we pass on legitimate targets for the simple reason of proximity to non-combatants. I think this sets in plain relief what is and is not terrorism. What I have described is the common understanding of the concept of terrorism in the vernacular of those of us trained to help deal with the problem. You can assign whatever personal meaning you like to the word terrorism, but if you want to be understood, and be taken seriously in any discussion with some one familiar with the subject, this is the meaning you have to use. Otherwise you are speaking your own language and both are talking past each other rather than to each other. The same thing would happen if you decided that the word egg, for you, was defined as meaning cow. That’s fine as long as your talking to yourself, which you might as well be doing if you try to use that meaning with any one else because you aren’t going to make any sense to them. ------------ About the author: William A. Hurt is not a writer by any means, just an occasional participant in the debates that interest him. The author is currently serving over seas with the active duty military and is an active member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Help keep Church and State separate, www.ffrf.org Email: freethoughtadvocate@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
