Defining Terrorism - Revised - Bobby Orokos

Bobby Orokos

May 5, 2017

Determining Terrorism - Final Essay

POL 357 - Global Politics of Terrorism

In the beginning of this class, I observed terrorism as a way for people to gain attention to their cause by invoking fear through rebellious, politically motivated, and strategic practices.  My ideas have stood in a similar place, with some key components being added: the importance of the targets, actors, and goals, the means of achieving goals, and the accessibility to governmental institutions.  I believe terrorism is classified using certain requirements, and later categorized by taking these classifications, and using them to evaluate the level of threat a person or organization holds against the public.

One case study to determining terrorism is the War on Terror, declared by President George W. Bush in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.  In order to determine whether this entity is terrorism, we must look at the TAGs, intent of actors, and access to governmental institutions.  The targets of the War on Terror are potential terrorists working against the United States, primarily people in the Middle East or active participants of Islam.  The primary actor in the War on Terror is the United States, both a state actor and a global hegemon.  The goal of the War on Terror is to eradicate terror throughout the world, and protect the United States from future terror attacks.  During the War on Terror, the United States had the intent of killing anyone and obtaining as much information as possible from people associated with forms of terrorism, especially any affiliates of al-Qaeda.  The overall goals of the United States declaration of War on Terror were to protect the homeland from another attack, the overall destruction of al-Qaeda, and the democratization of the Middle East.  The means of achieving its goals placed the United States in using tactics such as rendition to obtain targets, black sites to contain targets, and double tapping drone strikes to ensure the target they were after is hit, despite the likelihood of hitting civilian targets.  This combination of the intent and means of achieving the goal of eliminating terrorism can itself be viewed as terrorism.  Despite these, the United States is arguably the strongest democracy in the world, meaning there is plenty of access to governmental institutions.  However, being a state, this access is not measured through domestic access to institutions, but access to create change in the international system.  Although a superpower, through the United Nations, the United States is not able to create change as it pleases, putting it in a state of distress.  By destroying jurisdiction in these states, as seen in Syria and Iraq, the United States engaged in a new form of war, one in which jurisdiction is completely overtaken.  In this case, the line for war and terrorism is blurred, with many unsure of whether or not a state is capable of committing an act of terrorism.  Although the United States is a superpower, it has limited access to powers in the international system, putting them at a disadvantage.  By staying involved internationally, the United States builds up itself while taking away from the sovereignty of other states.  When applied on a domestic level, terrorist organizations are exactly that: outside groups with extreme ideas to influence change through violent means.  While the United States and the War on Terrorism are internationally viewed as “casualties of war”, had the United States been a domestic actor in these areas, they would be labeled terrorists because their actions taken throughout the War on Terror are identical to terrorist organizations and their campaigns to fight for their political goals.

Another case to look at is the instance of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).  The determination of whether or not this organization engages in acts of terrorism is seen through the three components observed earlier.  Starting with the TAGs of the group, the targets are formally identified as populations of people who are harmful to the environment, primarily organizations the profit off the destruction of nature.  The actors of the ELF are environmentalists dedicated to saving the environment through the punishment of those who harm it.  The goals are the group are to,  “1) To cause as much economic damage as possible to a given entity that is profiting off the destruction of the natural environment and life for selfish greed and profit, 2) To educate the public on the atrocities committed against the environment and life, 3) To take all necessary precautions against harming life” (Loadenthal, 2013).  As the means of achieving their goals, the ELF was dedicated to property destruction, but also vowed to stay away from harming life, despite using fear as a way to manipulate their targets to act in their favor.  Their approach to property damage is observed through primarily fires set to offices and workshops of corporations that contribute to deforestation and other environmental degradations.  By committing these actions, the ELF hopes to scare people out of damaging the environment.  The ELF, being a terrorist group in the United States, has access to arguably the greatest democracy in the world.  However, despite being a part of this great democratic system, the ELF is a minority group, and could be considered a faction, as observed in Madison’s Federalist 10.  United to oppress another group (people who harm the environment), the ELF holds many similarities to a faction, more so than they are to terrorists.  Despite their harmful actions against property, their actions are not even comparable to past terrorist attacks, such as the Orlando nightclub shooting or the 9/11 attacks, where the primary motivation of these attacks was to kill.  Using these comparisons, the ELF is considered as a unified oppressive group, but not the extent of a terrorist group, as their cause specifically stated their opposition to casualties to living beings.  It is because of this intent that the ELF is more a faction than a terrorist group.

Terrorism is a vague term applied to many situations, often some that are not the extent of terrorism.  My views of terrorism have changed since the start of the semester.  Originally, I viewed terrorism as a way for an oppressed group to gain attention for their causes and goals, but now I understand that terrorism is a combination of targets, actors, goals, intent, and access to create change within their system.  By studying these areas and analyzing groups that commit acts of terror, they can be classified as terrorist groups.  As seen with the War on Terror, terrorism is capable of being committed by a state.  As seen with the ELF, not all groups that commit violence are terrorists, but there are varying classifications of factions, insurgents, and terrorists.  Strongly built off of Lisa Stampninsky’s arguments of classifying terrorism, terrorism is a way to measure phenomena to declare who is an ally and an enemy in the public eye based off their actions.

Bibliography:

Loadenthal, Michael (2013).  The Earth Liberation Front: A Social Movement Analysis.  Retreived from http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/article/view/13/html#sdfootnote1sym

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

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

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

USS Cole (October 6, 2016).  Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/world/meast/uss-cole-bombing-fast-facts/