Understanding Terrorism (Revisited)

Understanding Terrorism
Original Post Date: July 7, 2005

If you read the blogs of rabid fundamentalists, terrorists are sub-human beings who delight in inflicting death, misery and terror on unsuspecting civilians. They are the vermin of the world. I have trouble getting my mind around such concepts. From my perspective, terrorism does not constitute depraved immorality but is a STRATEGY of warfare.

(Before anyone gets the idea that I am supporting terrorism by trying to understand its motivational factors, let me say that I abhor all types of violence. As a pacifist, I'm against war, terroristic acts, gang violence and neighborhood fist fights as well as spousal and/or child abuse. I firmly believe that the only thing violence ever begets is more violence. So this analysis is not undertaken because I approve of the strategy utilized.)

We generally define terrorism as being violence directed at noncombatants or innocent civilians instead of purely military targets.

In the days of yore, there were strict rules for military engagements. Two armies lined up against each other and duked it out. In some instances (noted in The Bible, for example), one military force would lay siege to a community, killing not only the opposition's military force but all inhabitants as well. Still, the prime initiative was to destroy the other sides fighting capability.

However, during the American Revolution, the colonists were at a distinct disadvantage. They were outnumbered and out-gunned. So, instead of lining up face-to-face, many battles were fought guerrilla-style. Colonial soldiers lined the roads to pick off a few British soldiers as they marched.

If the colonists had fought SOLELY by the rules of the day (one army facing off against the opposing army), the revolution would have been a failure. The colonists would have annihilated by the superior British force.

The American Revolution and other historic examples taught future military leaders and strategists a valuable lesson -- there are no rules in modern warfare. Each side does what they have to do to gain the upper hand and to win the day.

The old rules of military engagement have been tossed in the dustbin of history. During World War I, both sides tried to GAS the other into submission. During World War II, all sides engaged in aerial bombing of cities -- not simply military targets -- of the opposition (e.g., London, Berlin, Tokyo, etc.) You want to talk about terrorizing people...

Today, we have a few nations with superior military forces and munitions. Most nations or groups do not possess the numbers nor the firepower to fight directly against the superpowers. As with the American colonists of the late 18th century, it would be suicide to fight these superpowers under the auspices of conventional warfare.

Regardless of your opinion of the situation, many Islamic nations, groups and people feel oppressed under the thumb of the United States and her allies. They believe the US is responsible for their economic impoverishment that has been impetus for much physical suffering and countless deaths.

Since, as indicated above, a military to military war is out of the question and they concurrently can't match the superpowers in economic and/or media terms, what other strategy is available to them BUT terrorism?

From THEIR standpoint (not mine), if they can inflict enough terror among the citizens of the superpowers, the public will lose its resolve and will pressure their governments to meet the terrorist's demands. It's an ugly strategy, but the only one a weaker group has in order to defeat a more powerful group.

It is for these reasons that I and many others believe the key to halting terrorism is not attacking it militarily. Each time we meet force with force, it only enrages those utilizing terrorist strategy more. It redoubles their resolve to commit even more heinous acts. So, they attack us again and we try to retaliate even more. It creates a never-ending cycle.

Proponents of an increased military response say that those of us in opposition to it are coddlers of terrorists. They say that, if we don't smash them under a steel boot, we remain their hostage.

I think the exact opposite is true. Every time we kill one terrorist, we create two. If kill 100, we create 200. If we kill 1,000, we create 2,000. As long as we keep helping to create them, we insure that we remain their hostage and that terrorism will remain their most viable strategy.