The use of the word “terrorism” has become very liberal in our day, a phenomenon I believe to be extremely dangerous. The problem with the word is that it immediately makes anyone labeled with it beyond negotiation – an enemy that can never be anything but an enemy. It creates a battle that can only end with the complete elimination of the opponent – a war with no truce, a conflict with no end. Please don’t misinterpret, I don’t believe we should negotiate with terrorists and do believe we have every right and duty to fight against extremist violence – I am currently separated from my family in an unpleasant place participating in that work because I believe it needs to be done. However, I would very much like to spend the majority of my military career at home with my family instead of here in the business of violence – and thus I have a particular interest in our careful use of the word “terrorism.”

So what is terrorism? Between Air Force professional education and various international security classes I’ve heard many answers to that question. The general consensus seems to be violence towards civilians, usually with the goal of emotionally affecting a larger populace to achieve some ultimate political objective. The black and white lines start to gray when we really consider the political objective at hand. When the objective, like Al-Qaeda’s, is to overthrow legitimate governments and install extremist religious tyrannies, then I think negotiation is a little out of the question and use of the word terror is appropriate. But what if the “terror” is perpetrated by a political entity that believes they are oppressed by a dominant force and is fighting for liberation the only way they can? The acts of violence are still atrocious, but I believe our response needs to be much different. Let me give an example.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) was considered by many a terrorist organization. They used non-conventional means to attack non-military targets in hopes of furthering their political goal of political liberation. They knew they could not openly attack the British, but used violence as a means to achieve their goal or at least improve their bargaining position. I’m not condoning their tactics, but I will praise the resolution. Tony Blair and many other great leaders eventually turned that violent situation into peace. They didn’t do it by declaring war on the IRA, invading Ireland and hunting them down. They did it by recognizing that the ultimate political goal of the resistance – political liberation of Northern Ireland – was valid, and negotiated for that end while demanding it had to be accompanied by renouncing violence. It was successful – the violence has ended, the terrorism is gone, peace is restored, and there is no more enemy to fight.
Is the violence coming from Palestine any different? What about Hezbollah? Again, let me reiterate their tactics and violence are unacceptable and reprehensible – but what about their end goal? The fact is that the people of Palestine are under oppressive rule by a government they don’t accept and the Muslim world is angered by it. That oppressive government, Israel, is supported politically and militarily by the Western world led by the United States. Do we not uphold as our deepest value that government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people? And if it’s not, that a people has the right, the duty even, to fight against it? Our Declaration of Independence makes that claim the foundation of our national identity.

However, I can hear you thinking that fighting a war of independence against a military is different than launching rockets at civilians across a border or blowing yourself up to kill them. I don’t believe in attacking civilians either – but try to put yourself in their shoes. Democracies claim to be governed by their people, right? Are the actions of the military not just the reflection of the will of the people? If I, as a civilian, hire a uniformed military to oppress a people am I not just as much an enemy as those in uniform? And what if a truly oppressed people has no possibility of defeating the military, do we not think they would resort to any tactics possible to defeat their oppressors? Would we not do the same? If we were oppressed by a superior force do you not think we would fight in any way possible to secure our liberty? Would we not think it heroic of a man to fight against the oppressor, knowing he would meet his death in the fight? Have we not used unethical tactics when we felt our liberty and security were threatened (whether those acts were perpetrated by unsanctioned minorities or an accepting majority)? Did we not throw innocent Japanese citizens of America in internment camps, attempt to assassinate political leaders of hostile nations (civilians), support and fund brutally oppressive governments, torture prisoners held with no hope for trial, and use weapons of mass destruction to kill tens of thousands of innocent, non-combative civilians in Japan? I’m not trying to tear down America, but I believe true patriotism should cause us to ask ourselves some hard questions about the ideals we believe in and whether or not our behavior is in line with those principles.

The point I’m trying to make is not that some kinds of terrorism are okay, but rather that different kinds of violence have to be handled in different ways, and an unequivocal declaration of good vs. evil is counterproductive. Some true terrorists, those who use violence as a means to pursue tyrannical goals, need to be pursued like the criminals they are. I would argue that this is a relatively small group – those with whom negotiation is not an option – and we should use any and all means available to neutralize them. But then there are political organizations with legitimate goals and concerns that use illegitimate tactics to further them. Labeling these as terrorists only makes it impossible to stop the violence. When a people have legitimate needs that aren’t met, conflict will continue until the needs are fulfilled.

So if we really want peace, if we really want those serving our country to be reunited with their families and free from constant violence, we need to start thinking seriously about the legitimate concerns of those supporting violence. We need to think hard about the consequences of believing a people are unfit to govern themselves , that a nation’s government can’t be based on its own deep rooted religious beliefs, and that a people of whom a minority have perpetrated violence are no longer worthy of liberty.
I hope we can learn a lesson from how terrorism was ended in the United Kingdom. It wasn’t by creating a list of terrorist organizations and sending the military after them. It wasn’t by winning a “war on terror.” Terrorism was ended by empowering a people that sought for their liberty, giving respect to a people who sought to govern themselves, and demanding the renunciation of violence in return for what was rightfully theirs in the first place.

One more plug for my last post: we cannot continue to antagonize the Muslim world at home or abroad, in our domestic rhetoric or international policy. If we continue to antagonize an entire religious civilization, we will continue to solicit violence in return.