Que Es El Terrorismo

What is Terrorism?

231

What is Terrorism? Redefining a Phenomenon in Time of War
Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government of the United States, along with many of its allies, declared war on terrorism. What exactly is meant by terrorism, however, has not been made clear. This article contends that without such a definition, the term willlose all its utility and any war against an undefined terrorism will ultimately become unmanageable and unsuccessful. The article, therefore, seeks a new definition of terrorism, looking at the phenomenon not as a single experience but instead dividing it into four separate categories: national terrorism, revolutionary terrorism, reactionary terrorism, and religious terrorism. The article thenconcludes that unless a clear definition of terrorism is given and agreed upon, the present war on terrorism will become nothing more than a vague abstraction.

We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. In this world there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where the line is drawn. Yet, there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, noremembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences. President George W. Bush, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 20011

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush declared war on terrorism. He explainedto the nation that in the coming war, the U.S. government would make “no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”2 Three days later, the President clarified his position: “On Tuesday, our country was attacked with deliberate and massive cruelty. We have seen

PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2005 © 2005 Peace History Society and Peace and JusticeStudies Association

231

232

PEACE & CHANGE / April 2005

the images of fire and ashes, and bent steel.... Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.” He closed by saying, “This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. Itwill end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”3 The President was far from the only American wishing revenge for the atrocities of September 11. Time Magazine columnist Lance Morrow, writing on the eve following the attacks, echoed the sentiments of many across the nation:
A day cannot live in infamy without the nourishment of rage. What’s needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort ofpurple American fury—a ruthless indignation that doesn’t leak away in a week or two.... Let America explore the rich reciprocal possibilities of the fatwa. A policy of focused brutality does not come easily to a self-conscious, self-indulgent, contradictory, diverse, humane nation with a short attention span. America needs to relearn a lost discipline, self-confident relentlessness—and to relearnwhy human nature has equipped us all with a weapon (abhorred in decent peacetime societies) called hatred.4

Letters of support for Morrow’s position flowed into the offices of Time. Among them, a writer from Bethesda, Maryland, said: “I am sickened by the number of appeals for forgiveness that I am already seeing on church announcement boards and hearing from commentators on talk shows.... There isnothing inhuman or immoral about venting rage, protecting ourselves or trying to eradicate a poison that is seeking to eradicate our nation.”5 Another from Los Angeles commented: “I am impatient to act. We must retaliate.... The borders should be closed and troops stationed at them. We must vigilantly patrol our coasts and airspace until further notice. As far as I’m concerned, we should...