An Undefined Term

According to the President of the United States we are in a "war against terror." However, there is significant question as to what he's talking about. Not only is our supposed enemy elusive, but so is how we define who or what we're fighting. Some might argue that Bush is using a term defined as one thing to describe something else for the purpose of simplicity. Otherwise, the "War on Terror" would become a sentence or a paragraph rather than a slogan. That may be, but in the name of simplicity, Bush has also confused what the war is about with the specific intent of gaining more support for himself while simultaneously deflecting his critics into a position that they do not hold. In other words, it's bigger than semantics.

First, we must assume that Bush wants a "war on TERRORISM" rather than "TERROR." Terror just means fear, and it would be rather difficult to fight fear, especially with armed soldiers. Another definition of "terror" relates to a totalitarian state's use of fear to quell opposition (as how the term was used in the French and Russian revolution). Apparently, Bush is not fighting this either because very few states expressly use "terror," and those that do (Uzbekistan, North Korea, Burma) are not at war with us.

Thus, we need a definition of "terrorism." In fact there are several definitions (some linguists say as many as 100 separate definitions) that could be used. Here, I will rank 7 of them from the most accurate and general meaning of the word to how it's used more colloquially and specifically:

1. The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion (Websters)

2. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. (Dictionary.com)

3. peacetime equivalent of a war crime (Alex Schmid, terrorist "expert")

4. any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act (UN) (alsoe see US criminal code: …activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping).

5. the intended use of violence against civilians (news media)

6. acts perpetuated by groups that despise freedom and pursue totalitarian aims (paraphrasing Bush)

7. Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalists who use suicide and car bombs on American civilian and non-civilian targets. (colloquial)

As you can see there is quite a bit of discrepancy. Different definitions mean fighting different things. Interestingly, only the 7th applies to what we're actually doing.

Let's go through them. The first is the most broad, but it doesn't include its uses for politics and its relationship with casualties. Under this definition, a sibling or a parent could be considered a terrorist, thus it's not particularly useful.

The second definition brings in politics, an important step. However it doesn't include civilians. Thus, any war or even a legal system could be defined as terrorism. In other words, it's not particularly accurate.

The 3rd definition brings in the notion of war crimes, which has a whole literature of its own. I actually like this definition as a kind of shorthand. The only problem is that war crime laws are entirely based on the idea that you are fighting a declared enemy and so include things like misusing a flag of truce, etc. It would also include oppressive acts by states against their own citizens, which I do not consider terrorism. Of course, this is not what the "war on terrorism" is about because...well, we're at WAR with them.

The 4the definition, especially the UN part, is considered by most to be the best definition. There is a addendum to this definition written by Schmid here, which goes into even greater detail. For me, this is the best definition of the term available and the one I use. There are a few reasons why this is not what the "war on terrorism" is about. One, under the definition we might be guilty of terrorism, if nothing else than from our "shock and awe" campaign at the beginning of the Iraq occupation that killed many civilians. The only question is whether we "intended" to kill them. Also, our treatment of non-combatants, from Abu-Gahrib to torture facilities in Romania and Egypt (and possibly even at Guantanamo) would also put us in the terrorist camp. And of course, there is the whole issue of us being a regime of terror, given our somewhat recent history of using terrorism as defined in this way: in Chile in 1973, in Nicaragua in the 1980s, several acts against Castro and Cuba, and specific acts in Vietnam (like the My Lai massacre, for example) (this is not to mention the actions of Sherman in the Civil War or the the rebels of the American Revolution). Obviously, we can't be fighting ourselves, so this can't be what is meant by a "war on terrorism."

The sixth definition, provided by Bush when confronted with this question, would be cute if it wasn't so trite. Essentially, Bush is trying to make the "war on Terrorism" into the Cold War, Part II: Cruise Control. The definition he gives for terrorism is the same definition Cold Warriors gave to communism. Unfortunately for him, terrorism isn't communism and if he thinks it is, then we're in a lot of trouble. I'll spare you a long discussion of Cold War history and the theories of Marx, Lenin, Kennan, and Reagan, and just point out that a definition of communism does not stand up as a definition of terrorism. If we look at actions that are universally considered terroristic, like those perpetuated by the Mau-Maus, the FLN in Algeria, the Sturm Gang and Irgun in Israel, the PLO in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, you'll notice that they all were not that concerned with establishing 'totalitarianism' (although some did lean in that direction), and rather than disdain freedom, all of the above mentioned groups were trying to get independence from something. In fact, the only time terroristic acts would fit under this definition is when they were committed by communists, as in the Vietnam war. This is not the definition we actually use in our "war on terrorism" because, well, we're not trying to overthrow communist governments anymore (China's ok now because they sell us stuff) and we are actually allied with a number of groups that easily fall under this definition of "terrorism" (namely the Saudi royal family, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan, to name a few.)

This leaves us with the last definition, which happens to be exactly who we're fighting. Of course, the administration has pretended that terroristic groups across the world are being targeted, from FARQ in Columbia to ETA in Basque Spain, but in reality we haven't done much in these areas. We won't be invading Columbia any time soon. There are two issues that should be contemplated considering that this is the definition we are using for the "war on terrorism":
A. This is a terrible definition of terrorism historically and analytically.
B. Is this group worth targeting for a Cold War, Part II type of confrontation?

If you answered yes to part B you might just be a redneck...I mean a supporter of the "War on Terror" (sorry, bad joke). Now, if you think these groups need to be confronted everywhere for several generations, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. Certainly, terrorism according to the 7th definition is a horrible phenomenon that can be directly blamed for the attacks on Sept. 11. Perhaps, then, you think the "war on terror" is a good idea being poorly implemented. Fair enough, I don't particularly disagree, although I question how a war will solve the problem (perhaps an honest glimpse of their grievances could be examined just for the sake of curiosity). At least now, though, you know what is meant by a "war on terror" and you won't be confused by what it isn't.

So, what isn't it? An overthrow of Saddam would fit nicely under this category. Well, Saddam was a Middle Easterner. However, he was not an Islamic fundamentalist (in fact he was a pretty stern secularist). He also never targeted the United States in any attack except during the Persian Gulf War and he did not have anything to do with Osama Bin Laden and the rest of those who planned/executed the attacks on Sept. 11. Well, then, perhaps the occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the "war on terror," which it didn't. So, why does Bush keep bringing it up?

Bush uses the refrain of a "war on terrorism" for two reasons: One, he has made Iraq into a battleground for the war on terror with his disastrous overthrow of Saddam. Thus, it actually makes sense to use it NOW with Iraq. Second, by using the term Bush has taken credit for a war he has done almost nothing to fight. By this I mean not that he hasn't strapped on a machine gun, but that under Bush, the United States has done almost nothing effective to fight "terrorism" as defined above outside of invading and occupying Afghanistan. Ironically, then, Bush and his associates have called those that criticize his "war on terrorism" as being "soft on terrorists," when Bush has done nothing substantive to decrease the amount or power of "terrorists" in the middle east (quite the contrary). It's not because he doesn't want to (probably), it's because he's spent all his time and military on preventing Iraq from becoming the ultimate "terrorist" super state, a possibility he single-handedly created.With a ridiculous misnomer for his current policies, Bush has used the "war on terrorism" to protect himself from attacks of being "soft on terror," which he is. It's what George Orwell called doublespeak.