10 Things to Know About Terrorism

[Guest guest]

10 Things to Know About Terrorism

Mark LeVine, <A HREF= " http://www.alternet.org/ " >AlterNet</A>

October 4, 2001

 

1. What is terrorism? Terrorism is hard to define. In its broadest sense

terrorism can be thought of as the use or threatened use of force against

civilians designed to bring about political or social change. Moreover, while

we think of terrorism as being both a political and irrational act

(especially suicide terrorism), terrorism can also be thought of as a

rational act conducted specifically because of the impact -- fear, confusion,

submission -- it will have. Given the U.S. government's pledge to wage a war

against terrorism, it is important to look at its definitions. According to

both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the FBI, terrorism is " the unlawful

use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce

a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance

of political or social objectives. " The DOD definition adds that a goal of

terrorism can be " inculcating fear " (thus the psychological dimension), while

the State Department is more elaborate, specifying that terrorism may include

the use of biological, chemical or nuclear devices as well as the act of

" assassination. " The latter would suggest that assassinating bin Laden would

be a terrorist act, should the U.S. government's attempt to eliminate him

lead to wide-scale violence and coercion in Afghanistan; the former that the

U.S., through its use of nuclear weapons to end World War II and chemical

weapons in Vietnam, has already engaged in terrorist activities. This is the

grand conundrum of defining terrorism; it is very difficult to separate it

from acts of war, just or unjust. We all have heard the saying, " One man's

terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. " And indeed, Osama bin Laden and

his comrades were hailed as freedom fighters in the 1980s by the American

government at a time when politicians like Dick Cheney considered Nelson

Mandela a terrorist. Further, the UN definition of terrorism states that " all

war crimes will be considered acts of terrorism, " in which case most every

government in the world (especially the major military powers, India,

Pakistan, Israel, the major Muslim states, most Latin American governments)

has committed terrorism, though few have ever faced justice or even

opprobrium for doing so. 2. What is the history of terrorism? The first

recorded use of " terrorism " and " terrorist " was in 1795, relating to the

Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. The use of " terrorist "

to signify anti-government activities was recorded in 1866 referring to

Ireland, and in 1883 referring to Russia. Throughout history humans have

terrorized their neighbors to generate fear and compel changes in behavior.

At the dawn of China's imperial age, T'ai Kung, the first Chinese general and

progenitor of strategic thought, described the " spreading of civil

offensives " to sow dissension, demoralize the populace and incapacitate the

government. In the modern period, all regular armies have recruited

" irregulars " to do their dirty work: Cossacks, hunters, Hussars, all were

used to draw a civilized veil over the actions of their sponsors as they

raped and pillaged in towns and across countrysides. (Ironically, Ivan the

First had to subdue the very Cossacks he used to pacify the Muslim regions of

Russia; today the U.S. is forced to subdue the Muslims we used to pacify

Russia.) Today terrorism must be viewed within the context of the modern

nation-state. Indeed, it was the rise of a bureaucratic state, which could

not be destroyed by the death of one leader that forced terrorists to widen

their scope of targets in order to create a public atmosphere of anxiety and

undermine confidence in government. This reality is at the heart of the

terrorism of the last 100 years, from anarchists' assassinations to

hijackings and suicide bombings. 3. Who and where are terrorists today?

According to the U.S. State Department, there are at least 45 terrorist

groups outside the United States. Currently, at least seven " rogue states " --

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba and now Afghanistan -- are

accused by the U.S. of " supporting terrorism. " But the label of who is and

isn't a terrorist is still fuzzy. Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat was a

terrorist, and now isn't. Jerry Adams of Ireland's Sinn Fein and Nelson

Mandela of South Africa were terrorists, now they're statesmen. At least

three Israeli Prime Ministers were either self-avowed terrorists or could be

legitimately accused of engaging in terrorist activities. Our newest ally in

the war against terror, Russian President Vladimir Putin, continues to lead a

dirty war in Chechnya that could be described as terrorist in the ferocity of

its atrocities against civilians. Thirty years ago Noam Chomsky reminded us

that two thirds of the national-security states using torture and terrorism

were clients of the United States. Moreover, almost every Middle Eastern

government, including our strongest allies, engage in state-terrorism against

its people or its neighbors. To cite just one small example, Pakistan, our

major security partner in Central Asia, is about to execute Dr. Yunis Shaikh,

a leading humanist and peace activist [go to http://free-drshaikh.org for

more information and to help free him] on concocted charges of " blasphemy, "

precisely in order to stifle any dissent against the government's policies.

And yet President Bush has ignored this human rights abomination, waved

American sanctions imposed after the detonation of the Pakistani bomb and is

putting together new aid packages for the Pakistan government. 4. From where

does the trail of Osama bin Laden, and terrorists more generally, originate?

We are only beginning to understand the incredibly complex logistical,

financial and personnel network behind the likes of Osama bin Laden. This

complexity suggests the deeper we dig, the wider the circle grows. What has

long been clear is that bin Laden's main support comes from Pakistan and

Saudi Arabia, both major U.S. allies and pivots in our Middle Eastern and

Central Asian security system. The U.S. remains the lead arms supplier and

patron of the Saudi regime, and was very close to Pakistan during the Afghan

war, while the dictator Zia ul-Haq (one of the world's more ruthless) was in

power. The CIA was a main funnel of over $3 billion in funds to the Afghan

resistance, which became the core of the current terrorist network. The

Soviet Union was likewise a supporter of the previous generation of Arab

terrorists, such as Abu Nidal, the Popular Front for the Liberation of

Palestine and other Palestinian groups. The U.S. alliance with the Saudi

royal family goes back to the 1940s, when the Roosevelt administration

pledged to ensure the survival of the royal family as long as it ensured a

supply of cheap oil. Thus was born the petrodollar-arms cycle, in which

dollars sent to the Saudis in the form of oil revenues were recycled back to

the U.S. through arms purchases. To understand the finances of terrorism it

is important to keep in mind this petrodollar cycle, which keeps the vast

majority of oil revenue in the hands of corrupt regimes and thus out of reach

of most citizens of the region. If we turn to the question of who is

harboring and financing terrorists, once again the West and its allies in the

Middle East and global south are implicated. For its part, the U.S. is

involved, through foreign aid and weapons sales totaling hundreds of billions

of dollars during and since the Cold War (from just 1993 to 1997, the U.S.

government sold, approved or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually

every nation on earth). The same has been true for the Soviet Union, though

on a smaller scale. Whether in Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle

East, regimes that have engaged in acts of terror could not have survived

without the support of the two (and now one) superpower. But blame cannot

just be laid with superpowers. If bin Laden could not survive without the

Taliban, the Taliban could not exist were it not for Pakistan's patronage and

support of hundreds of " madrasas, " or religious schools, that train millions

of young men to do little else other than hate and kill in the name of God.

In fact, the major financiers of the bin Laden and the Taliban have been

Saudi intelligence and eminent Saudis such as the Governor of Riyadh and the

Grand Mufti of the country. Moreover, bin Laden has been linked to Saddam

Hussein by researcher Laurie Mylroie in her recent book Study of Revenge. Yet

it is not only princes and sheiks who are to blame: average people through

small donations have helped to sustain myriad terrorist organizations,

whether its Arabs giving to duel-function groups like the Muslim Brotherhood

or the Hamas that provide social services and support violent activities, or

poor Pakistanis who still manage to give a rupee or two to add to bin Laden's

millions. 5. What do Judaism, Christianity and Islam have to say about

terrorism? The concept of terrorism arose centuries after the classic texts

of the three religions were handed down to humanity, so it is difficult to

discuss the concept of terrorism in this sense. However, all three Abrahamic

faiths allow war and set limits on when, how and against whom it can be waged

If we start with Judaism, certainly the Bible, in the Ten Commandments,

admonishes " thou shalt not kill, " which clearly would prescribe any sort of

violence against non-combatants. Indeed, the Prophet Hosea warned Israel that

her sins would cause " the tumult of war [to] arise among your people, and all

your fortresses shall be destroyed… mothers dashed in pieces with their

children. " Yet the Bible also describes the Lord as " a man of war " who orders

Israel to " go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do

not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and

sheep, camel and ass. " In one sense, this is not an act of terrorism, since

the goal isn't political. Yet in the larger context of teaching a lesson to

Israel's enemies by making Am'alek an example, it clearly meets the criteria.

Moreover, if we look at the Egyptians' killing of all the first born of the

Hebrews, and God's doing likewise as the tenth plague preceding the Exodus,

both could be described as " terroristic " because they involved the killing of

innocent non-combatants for political ends -- i.e., the changing of attitudes

and policies on each side. If we turn to Christianity, the example of Jesus's

doctrine of blessing peacemakers and turning the other cheek has influenced

pacifist movements to this day. Instead of an " eye for an eye, " Jesus said,

" Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. " Yet he did not

challenge the Roman soldiers to give up their profession—which certainly

included " terrorism " as a matter of course—while Paul in Romans exclaims that

" He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to

execute wrath upon him that doth evil. " As Christian theology developed with

Augustine and later Aquinas, the doctrine of " just war " helped define the

rules and limits of war, and are now being used by the Vatican to indicate

its support for the war against terrorism. Augustine explained, " We do not

seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be

peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war

against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace. " Such solipsisms are

easily distorted to justify any sort of barbarity, even as the just war

doctrine prohibited " private individuals " (like Osama bin Laden) from

" summoning together the people, " to quote Aquinas. Yet Augustine's definition

of a just war as " one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be

punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its

subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly " sounds just like the

justifications offered by terrorists everywhere for their extreme actions.

And indeed, the commonly accepted contemporary criteria for a just war --

having a " just case, " being under " proper authority, " fighting for justice

and not reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement -- can all be claimed by

terrorists as well as " just " states. Finally, we should remember that the

Crusades or Inquisition, which were executed largely through terroristic

means, were authorized directly by the Church. Arriving at Islam, the concept

of Jihad, or " struggle, " which in recent decades has been at the theological

core of justifying Muslim acts of terrorism, traditionally meant the

spiritual and moral struggle of an individual Muslim against his or her evil

inclinations. The " other " jihad, that is, war against other human beings, is

in classical Muslim sources a " defensive " war with limits that cannot be

" transgressed, " even when fighting those who " try to force you to adopt

another religion or to leave your home. " In fact, the conservative Ayatollah

Ali Khamenei of Iran just called the fight against terrorism a " holy war " --

that is, a jihad. Yet while the Koran has plenty of verses that talk about

peace, even with Muhammad's enemies, there are also verses that advocate war

and violence. Indeed, God exclaims in Sura 8:12, " I will instill terror into

the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their

finger-tips off them. " Moreover, while the Koran prohibits suicide, and the

Prophet clearly prohibited killing noncombatants, women and children,

destroying property or even poisoning wells (the precursor to chemical

warfare), there are hadith (prophetic sayings) that list jihad as among the

highest religious duties, higher even than performing the pilgrimage to

Mecca, which is one of the five pillars of the faith. And although it is not

always clear which jihad is being spoken of, the fact that the Prophet is

quoted as saying that booty will be the reward for " Jihad for God, " one can

assume that the martial sense of jihad is intended much of the time.

Ultimately, the theological roots of terrorism or war in general would seem

to be moot, for religion has long been used to justify politics and warfare.

Nonetheless, this has not stopped the terrorists who attacked the World Trade

Center and Pentagon from considering themselves to be good Muslims, nor the

Jews who settle the West Bank or uproot Palestinian homes from considering

themselves to be good Jews. Arguing with them about the " true " nature of

their religion is a waste of time. They might indeed by " good " Christians,

Muslims or Jews, but are in the end bad human beings. 6. What are the most

common acts of terrorism? Since 1968, when the United States government began

keeping such statistics, more than 7,000 terrorist bombings have occurred

worldwide. The State Department currently lists 30 " designated foreign

terrorist organizations " and another 14 as " other terrorist organizations "

[for a full list, see

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/appb.html] According to

the State Department, the number of terrorist acts has hovered between 300

and 500 per year during the 1980-1999 period. Perhaps surprisingly, about two

thirds of all acts of terrorism are against business, numbering five-fold

more than attacks on diplomatic, military and government personnel or

property, or civilians. Moreover, while the Middle East dominates media

coverage of terrorism, in fact Latin America, followed by Western Europe,

suffered the most attacks in 1999 (96 and 30 respectively out of a total of

169), with bombings the most popular method of attack, followed by

firebombing, kidnapping, arson, and hijacking. But the State Department

numbers are misleading, because an incident is classified as international

terrorism only if it involves the citizens or territory of more than one

country; thus terrorism within countries not harming foreign nationals is not

counted. A more accurate accounting comes from Pinkerton Security's Annual

Risk Assessment, which show an average of almost 5,000 incidents per year

during the last decade, with terrorism confined to one country. Yet even

these numbers don't account for terrorist actions by governments. Indeed,

while hijackings and suicide bombings get the most attention, the fact is

that the most common act of terror is torture committed by states against

their own citizens, as Amnesty International reports that tens of thousands

of cases of torture and extra-judicial killings occur each year (and

complains that more often than not, the U.S. " shares the blame " for them). 7.

What are the most renowned acts of terrorism? The attacks of September 11 may

become the most famous acts of terror ever perpetrated, and are linked to

other terrorist attacks apparently sponsored by bin Laden on U.S. embassies

in Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen. Yet many of the most famous terrorist

attacks of the modern era were attacks on individual political leaders. The

turn of the 20h century, like today, was rife with terrorism, as evidenced by

anarchist killings of a French and Spanish Prime Ministers (Sadi Carnot and

Antonio Canovas), Empress Elizabeth of Austria, Italy's King Umberto I, and

the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, which sparked

the first World War. Anarchist mail bombs in the U.S. started the Palmer

Raids in 1920, one of the worst violations of civil liberties by U.S.

government in U.S. history. In the post-war period, acts of terrorism have

included the Munich Olympic massacre in 1972, plane hijackings and airport

shootings throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the 1993 World Trade Center attack,

the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the murderous acts

of the Ted Kazinsky, the " Unibomber, " the latter three of which signaled the

arrival of large-scale terrorism as permanent fact of life on American soil.

Finally, the Tokyo sarin subway attack by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 has augured a

new era in terrorism, now crowned by the September 11 attacks. Yet while we

focus on high-tech problems and responses, these attacks reveal that the new

dynamics of terror combine devoted militants, often well-educated, using

relatively primitive means to commit acts of extreme and indiscriminate

violence. 8. Does terrorism work; and if so, how can it be stopped? Terrorism

by the IRA, the PLO and other Palestinian groups, Sikhs, Tamils, Basques,

Philippino Muslims -- none of these has succeeded in altering the policies of

the affected states. Neither has state-sponsored terror by Rogue states led

to the defeat of an enemy. However, if the goal of terrorist acts by these

groups is to prevent peace and reconciliation, terrorism has worked. The

variables determining the success or failure of acts of terror are thus

indeterminate and complex. Perhaps the most we can say is that terror can

help the stronger party in a conflict win more quickly and with less loss of

life on its side (the rationale underlying the Nagasaki and Hiroshima

bombings or the massacre of Palestinians in 1948). Yet as perpetrators of

terrorism move away from single issue causes (freeing Northern Ireland or

Palestine) and become more apocalyptic, hoping like Osama bin Laden to start

war on a global scale, the standard for measuring success changes, as the

worst possible scenario on all sides is exactly what is hoped for. In such a

situation it becomes all the more important for citizens and leaders in the

West and its allies in the Muslim world -- in fact, all people everywhere --

to understand the role their policies, and indeed the whole world system as

presently and unequally structured, plays in the fostering and sustaining

this new generation of terrorists. Yet the scope and horror of the violence

inflicted by the new terrorism makes such introspection all but impossible.

In this sense, Osama bin Laden and his comrades around the world might

achieve their goals through their very destruction. 9. Does violence stop

terrorism? All we have to do is look at both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian

divide to understand that violence, including terrorism by a state or

occupied population, rarely stops further violence as long as the grievances

motivating them are not addressed. In that context, 15 years ago Connor

Cruise O'Brien warned that " the free, or capitalist, world provides highly

favorable conditions for terrorist recruitment and activity. " Why? Because

the number of frustrated were increasing along with their awareness of how

good life was for the few and better off. Ten years later, Bill Clinton made

the " war on terrorism " a lynchpin of his reelection campaign just as the

neo-liberal paradigm of globalization he championed achieved unparalleled

power in international policy-making. It should come as no surprise, then,

that in pushing for Star Wars funds, the U.S. Space Command's pamphlet

" Vision for 2020 " argues that " the globalization of the world economy " will

widen the gap between haves and the have-nots, and thus the U.S. government

has a mission to " dominate the space dimension of military operations " in

order to protect the U.S. from the rest of the world. In the context of a

world were conservative estimates declare half of humanity to be living on

less than $2 a day, asking the CIA or other military agencies to fight

terrorism is probably not going to work, as the " blowback " from policies that

produce ever-widening gaps between rich and poor between and within countries

will likely be at least as bad as the blowback produced by the CIA overthrow

of the Mossadeq Government and installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953. Even

on an operational level, as former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote only

months before the 9/11 attacks, it has proved impossible to place even the

best trained Muslim operative into the tight-knit structures that constituted

contemporary terrorist organizations. As for America's technological

supremacy, President Clinton sent dozens of cruise missiles after bin Laden,

none of which hit their target. From a broader perspective, the ever growing

world trade in arms, which fuels violence at all levels, has multiplied

opportunities for anyone with a grievance to spread terror anywhere,

including here. Yet our entire military-industrial system is based on the

large-scale trade in arms, which helps to fund our own defense budget.

Finally, since much of the rest of the world, especially citizens of the

Global South, harbor deep resentments against the United States for its

" cultural invasion " as much as for its economic and foreign policies, using

unilateral acts of large-scale violence in the war against terrorism will

only feed that hatred. 10. What are the alternatives to our current policies

on terrorism? There have been two phases of the U.S. approach to fighting

terrorism. The first, lasting until September 11, has been a " defensive

approach " (also called " antiterrorism " ) that sought to protect against

terrorism through increased security measures in airports and cooperation

among intelligence services. With the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. has officially

changed its policy to a more " offensive approach " (called

" counter-terrorism " ) that focuses on the " sources of violence, " that is the

terrorists themselves and those who harbor them. A host of bills have also

been proposed, including the " Combating Terrorism Act, " the " Anti-Terrorism

Act " and the " Public Safety and Cyber Security Enhancement Act, " all of which

civil libertarians argue go well beyond any necessary response to terrorism.

However, in terms of international law, there is a clear recourse in

situations of this sort: going through the UN Security Council, the only body

under international law that can authorize military action, or even authorize

the equivalent of an international arrest warrant. Moreover, there are at

least nine international multilateral terrorism conventions that the U.S. can

use as the basis for a legal war against terrorism through international law,

rather than unilateral war. [see:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/980817_terror_conv.html.] There is

also the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which has the moral and

legal basis to enter this process, be it state of non-state actors who are

ultimately accused of engaging in and/or supporting terrorism. This would

clearly constrain the range and freedom of action of the U.S. government in

prosecuting its war on terrorism, but that is precisely the point of the UN

-- to limit the use of violence by member nations to secure international

peace and security. In the last analysis, breaking the cycle of terrorism,

and the incredible violence that fuels it, requires a radical rethinking of a

world system that forces half of its members to live in abject poverty and

destroys ever more of the earth that sustains it. As the philosopher Slavoj

Zizek wrote in the wake of 9/11, " the only way to ensure that it will not

happen HERE again is to prevent it going on ANYWHERE ELSE. " Only then will

the war on terrorism see victory. Mark LeVine is an associate professor of

history at University of California, Irvine and a contributing editor to

Tikkun magazine. > >