Defining Terrorism Essay

Bobby Orokos

February 6, 2016

Terrorism - What is it?

POL 357 - Global Politics of Terrorism

        Terrorism is a rebellious, politically motivated, and strategic practice in which individuals invoke fear to express or divert attention to their ideas, ideals, or existence of their cause.  Terrorism has harmed people around the world for a long time, but the War on Terror declared by President George W. Bush in 2001 raised both awareness and actions to end terrorism around the globe.  While terrorism plagues the world and harms individuals globally, there is no universal definition as to what terrorism is.  Despite the ambiguities of terrorism, there are components that, when simultaneously practiced, help narrow down what actions are classified as an act of terror.
The United States State Department defines terrorism as, “politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Tilly, 2004, p. 7).  While the State Department definition covers many aspects of modern day terrorism attacks, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) shooting in Paris, and the attacks ordered by Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001, it fails to include the actions of state actors and acts of terror they can unleash against non-combatant targets.  The best example of this was the bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan in 2016, where the United States faced no consequences for their actions, but the 16 military personnel responsible for the attack were disciplined.  This act was not considered an act of terrorism, nor was it considered a war crime because it, “resulted from unintentional human error and equipment failure” (Starr and Browne, 2016).  While the State Department definition of terrorism encompasses groups that the United States wants to hold responsible for global actions that go against the national interests of the state, it fails to recognize that even states are capable of committing acts of terrorism against civilian populations.

The State Department definition is similar to the ideas of Stampninsky, who believes the label of “terrorism” was created to study an unnatural phenomenon for political purposes.  By creating such a derogatory term for opponents, defining who people should perceive as allies and enemies, according to their state, became more clear.  Stampninsky, “tells the story of how the phenomenon of political violence as transformed into “terrorism,” and the effects this would have for the creation of expert knowledge, public understanding, and policy in the United States” (Stampninsky, 2013, p. 3).  By creating a label for terrorism and those who use terror as a tactic, the general public of a state knows who is trustworthy, and who is identified as political enemies.  While terrorism is, in Stampninsky’s eyes a label, she also comments by saying, “terrorism is unacceptable violence” (Stampninsky, 2013, p. 8).  While terrorism is a separate category from insurgency groups, using violence to attack either military or civilian targets is very much not acceptable, the argument can be flipped towards states who use violent tactics, such as civilian actions or statements against their governments, or using tactics such as torture to obtain information from an apprehended terrorist suspect.

State terrorism is a controversy to the modern day over whether or not a state is capable of committing terrorism.  As Stampninsky states, terrorism is a field of study which studies classified actions, in her opinion, only capable of non-state actors.  Contradictory to the idea of terrorism as a field of study, Rappoport argues that terrorism is a tactic used to achieve goals, usually political by non-state actors who hold no physical power over political processes within a state.  Rapoport describes terror as, “extra-normal violence or violence beyond moral conventions regulating violence” (Rapoport, 2002).  Rapoport argues that terrorism is only committed when the rules of war are broken and non-combatants are targeted more than combatant targets.  While Rapoport holds a good view as to defining what terrorism is, his definition calls for the use of terrorism to also be applicable to states.  While non-state actors in the 20th and 21st centuries have used terrorism more often than states, states were and still are capable of committing acts of terrorism against other groups (Rapoport 2002).  However, the difference between state and non-state terrorism is that states hold physical power in political processes, whereas non-state groups are capable of influence in political processes, but do not directly hold the power of states.  In the modern day, states are considered not capable of carrying out acts of terrorism because of institutions that hold states accountable for their actions, such as the United Nations and both the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice.

While Tilly attempts to define the terms terror, terrorism, and terrorist, he classifies groups by degree of specialization in coercion, along with domestic or foreign operations, and classifies them as Militias, Conspirators, Autonomists, or Zealots, leaving the title of “terrorist” as a strategic method rather than a creed.  While he encompasses definitions for terror, terrorism, and terrorists, Tilly partially identifies the existence and use of state terrorism by saying, “repressive governments frequently apply terror to threatening minorities” (Tilly, 2004, p. 10).  By identifying repressive governments, democratic societies are typically avoided, whereas authoritarian states, such as North Korea, are capable of using governmental power to commit acts of terror against their own people, which using Tilly’s definition, is terrorism.  

In order to determine if a state can commit an act of terrorism, terrorism needs a definition to see how states are capable of committing the act.  As seen earlier, the United States attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan in 2016 was not classified as a terrorist attack, while it also failed to violate the international laws of war crimes and crimes against humanity under the United Nations.  When acts of terror committed by states are applied on an international playing field, the use of the word “terrorism” to identify such an action is avoided.  If citizens of the United States viewed the attack in Afghanistan as terrorism, the state itself would have to “eradicate” itself for its actions under the declaration of the War on Terror.  However, people of the United States would never eradicate their own government as a result of an act of terror.  As Stampninsky argues, the idea of terrorism is primarily to study an unknown phenomena by putting a distinct label on non-terrorists and terrorists, which are perceived by people allies and enemies to their individualistic states.  
While terrorism has no universally correct and agreed upon definition, it is still an issue that has plagued the past, and continues to affect the 21st century.  What many definitions lack is including that states are entities that also use terror as a tactic, but fail to identify them as terrorists.  Many definitions focus on subnational groups, such as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),  or the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and their actions against non-combatant targets, such as in the 9/11 attacks and the shooting of Pulse night club in Orlando.  What people fail to realize is the potential states have in committing acts of terror as well.  Typically, if an act of terror is committed in a state or an allied state, it is seen as terrorism, whereas if an act of terror is committed in a state that is not allied or holds close relations to a state, people will not perceive it as terrorism.  For example, in the United States, civilians viewed the attacks of 9/11 and the attack in Paris in November of 2015 as acts of terrorism, whereas they would not necessarily as quickly identify an act of terror, such as a car bomb hurting civilians in Yemen.  Identifying acts of terror depends on the context in which you are perceiving the act.  The civilians of Afghanistan most likely view the United States attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital as an act of terror, whereas people within the United States and its allies view it as “unintentional human error and equipment failure”.

Terrorism is a perspective-oriented term that defines actions of terror done against a certain perspective, but also enables that perspective to not identify their own actions as that term.  Defining what terrorism truly means is impossible because of the various perspectives that exist, and actions that have been taken.  Although terrorism is a one-sided stance, terrorism itself holds various components that can be used to try and identify if an act could be considered an act of terror: political motivation, non-combatant targets, and the strategic employment of fear through violence.

Works Cited

1.  Rapoport, D.  (2002).  Four Waves of Terror.  Anthropoetics - The Journal of Generative
Anthropology, Vol 12 (issue 1).  

2.  Stampninsky, Lisa (2013).  Disciplining Terror.  PLACE OF PUBLICATION: Cambridge
University Press

3.  Starr, B. & Browne, R.  (2016, April 29).  Pentagon: U.S. bombing of Afghanistan hospital not a ‘war crime’.  Central News Network.  Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/u-s-airstrike-hospital-afghanistan-investigation/

4.  Tilly, C.  (2004).  Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.  Sociological Theory, Vol 22 (issue 1), p. 5-13.