Kennedy Muise

Professor Shirk

POL 357 B

6 February, 2017

What Is Terrorism?

            Terrorism is arguably a misunderstood yet overused term to describe attacks that have taken place all over the world, notably in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. While the attacks are widely known by government officials, the media, and the public, many are unsure about what terrorism truly entails. According to the US State Department, terrorism is "politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" (Tilly 7). While this definition is true, it needs to be expanded. Therefore, a more concise definition of terrorism is a set of tactics used to inflict violence and fear onto noncombatants to obtain specific political goals, such as regime, territorial, and policy change, social control, and maintenance of the status quo.

The first part of this expanded definition is that terrorism affects noncombatants. To understand this point, it is important to distinguish a noncombatant from a terrorist. Michael Lewis, a law professor at Ohio Northern University’s Pettit College of Law, explains that “all people are civilians and are not subjected to targeting unless they take affirmative steps to either become combatants or to otherwise lose their civilian immunity” (227). Lewis continues by saying that “in order to become a combatant an individual must be a member of the ‘armed forces of a Party to a conflict’” (Lewis 227). According to Lewis, all people, including terrorists, are civilians. He argues that terrorists are not combatants because they are not part of an established armed force that is associated with a state. However, based off Lewis’ descriptions, terrorists are civilians who openly choose to participate in violent hostilities and who give up their “civilian immunity” by participating in armed attacks, i.e. Al Qaeda’s attack against the US on September 11, 2001 (Lewis 228). Lewis’ point clarifies the description of a terrorist, which is someone who gives up their civilian status to inflict violence on others, while a noncombatant is someone who keeps his/her civilian immunity by not participating in the armed forces or in violent acts.

The second part of the definition is that terrorism involves a set of violent tactics that ultimately lead to specific political goals. According to David Rapoport, author of the article, “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11,” terror is an “extra normal violence” which makes it “the quickest and most effective means to destroy conventions” (4). In his article, Rapoport characterizes terrorism in four different time periods which shows how terrorists’ tactics varied from assassinations to guerilla-like actions against troops to suicide bombings; while the tactics differ, Rapoport contends that terrorism was always used as a strategy and the “specific tactic used depended upon both the context and the [terrorists’] political objectives” (4-5). For Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, authors of “The Strategies of Terrorism,” there are five specific tactics that terrorists use which are attrition, intimidation, provocation, spoiling, or outbidding. In general, these strategies involve acts of persuasion towards either a government or a population to force them to comply to the terrorists’ desires; and, when the government or population fail to provide terrorists with adequate support, they face a set of punishments, usually in the form of terror (Kydd and Walter 51). Similar to Rapoport, Kydd and Walter explain that each tactic is used differently depending on the terrorists’ political goals. For example, the attrition strategy is normally used when the state is interested in the terrorists’ actions and when the state cannot easily retaliate or keep up with the costs of violence (Kydd and Walter 60-62). The intimidation strategy is executed when failed or weak states are easily threatened and exploited (Kydd and Walter 66-67). The provocation strategy is employed when terrorists can easily justify their actions and warrant support by taking advantage of a state that cannot easily strike back (Kydd and Walter 69-70). The spoiling strategy is used to break apart peace agreements by developing mistrusting relations between the moderate leaders of terrorist groups and the government itself (Kydd and Walter 74). Lastly, the outbidding strategy is applied when multiple state groups are searching for the “allegiance of a similar demographic base of support” (Kydd and Walter 76-77). These five strategies are important because they are classifying elements for terrorism; they allow terrorists to reach their political goals by requiring them to have many skills in persuasion and in intimidation to gain support, especially from the general population.

The third part of the definition describes how terrorists use strategies to reach a certain objective. While Rapoport argues that terrorism is simply a tactic, it is more specifically a tactic used to reach precise political goals. According to Kydd and Walter, the political goals characteristic to terrorism include: regime, territorial, and policy change, social control, and maintenance on the status quo. In general terms, terrorists have these five goals in order to overthrow a current governmental system, to expand a state’s territory in hopes of creating a new state, to invoke foreign policy change, to impose threats, and/or to constrain the rights of a certain population (Kydd and Walter 52). By specifying the goals in which terrorists want to attain, terrorism can be classified separately from rebellion or insurgency. Therefore, terrorism not only involves terror through strategies such as attrition or intimidation, but specifically involves these tactics of terror to achieve identifiable goals such as regime or territorial change.

Despite this definition of terrorism, some scholars, such as Lisa Stampnitizky, author of Disciplining Terror, believe that terrorism is an overused term invented by politicians and government officials to chastise enemies and to label them as “pathological evildoers” (3). Stampnitzky argues that the classification of terrorism through events and actions has changed a great deal throughout history; for example, airline hijackings in the 1950s and the 1960s were not uncommon, and they were not considered terrorism but, were rather considered forms of rebellion or insurgency. Stampnitzky points out that it was not until the 1970s that terrorism became known as a term used to describe violent acts such as bombings, hijackings, and kidnappings (2-3). Due to this inconsistency and confusion between terrorism and insurgency, Stampnitzky argues that “the study of terrorism has been cursed by an ongoing inability to settle upon a stable meaning” (7). Without an easily identifiable definition, terrorism has become increasingly overused. Stampnitzky makes a logical point that terrorism is widely misunderstood and misused by governmental officials, the media, and the public. In addition, Rapoport’s description of terrorism as a simple tactic seems too vague. However, Stampnitzky’s point makes it is necessary to make the definition of terrorism more concise by not only describing it as a set strategies, but by also identifying the political goals terrorists wish to attain using specific strategies. Once the strategies and goals are specified, it becomes easier to distinguish terrorists from combatants, insurgents, and/or rebels.

            The definition of terrorism has caused much confusion and misunderstanding amongst global leaders and the public. To understand terrorism, scholars and governmental organizations, such as the US State Department, have attempted to come up with definitions to more easily classify terrorism and the acts involved. However, these definitions are incomplete. A complete definition of terrorism describes the specific tactics used and the political goals pursued by terrorist groups. When these two elements are specified, the definition of terrorism becomes more precise. Defining terrorism does not negate the fact that every situation involving terrorist attacks are different. Instead, a clear and concise definition of terrorism that distinguishes noncombatants from terrorists and specifies terrorists’ tactics and political goals, allows for global leaders to easily recognize terrorist attacks so they can discuss and implement effective solutions to violent acts of terror to make the world a more peaceful and safer place.

 

Works Cited

Kydd, Andrew H, and Barbara F. Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism.” International Security. MIT Press, Vol. 31, No. 1. 49-80. Print. 4 February, 2017.

 

Lewis, Michael W. “Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeting.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Ed. John T. Rourke. McGraw-Hill, 2014. 226-231. Print. 4 February, 2017.

 

Rapoport, David C. “Four Waves of Terror.” University of California, Anthropoetics 8, No. 1. Los Angeles, 2002. 1-16. Web. 5 February, 2017.

 

Stampnitzky, Lisa. “How Experts Invented ‘Terrorism’”. Disciplining Terror. Cambridge University Press, Ch. 1-3. Print. 5 February, 2017.

 

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorists, and Terrorism.” Sociological Theory. American Sociological Association, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2004. 5-13. Print. 5 February, 2017.