![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumRecent reading (The Interrogators, by Chris Mackey... that will be a different post) had me pondering terror, as a tactic, and a question by antiquated_tory makes my thoughts on it more relevant.
What makes terrorism terrorism. This was addressed by some question and answer in my post about the mail with the device to make it ignite on opening (a whole new meaning to "flame wars").
And what of groups like the IRA?
Is there an acceptable use for terror?
Maybe.
When Michael Collins (to use the IRA as an example, because it's a subject near and dear to my Irish descended heart) was attacking the British he was using a form of terror. What the guerrillas in Spain did against the French when Napoleon invaded. It was more targeted than they were, but it was still aimed at those who were directly involved in the ruling of British Ireland.
As such, while unconventional, it was still war, and I could; had I been alive, have supported them with a clear conscience.
These days the Provos are in another kind of fight, one which is indiscriminate, and doesn't have such clear aims. They want the British out of N. Ireland, but they aren't trying to make a direct fight with the people running the show. In fact they don't always target those in N. Ireland (which isn't really required, they could make members of Parliament, who support the continuation of the status quo targets of assasination... I don't think I'd approve, but it would be a more legitimate fight... more akin to a war).
I'm a soldier, in the right context I am a legal target for some pretty indiscriminate lethal force (a 122mm rocket is not what anyone would call a precision weapon... neither is a hand grenade, it's just a matter of scale). If the Provos were attacking just soldiers, and administrators, and the government which supports and pays for it... it would be (in my mind) a form of legitimate struggle (none of this means I think such a thing is a good idea. The 80ish years since the founding of an independent south have changed the equation, as have the tactics of the Provos).
Which, I guess, defines what I mean by terrorism. I, as a soldier, have explicitly accepted that there are situations where killing people to gain my ends are acceptable. Some of those means are terrible, but those are the rules of the game.
Groups who try to sway an entire people without accepting a concomitant risk (and suicide as a tactic doesn't count... unless the target is of a military nature), people whose specific targets are the non-players (civilians in a war are different, one of the reasons I disagree with calling the struggle with bin Laden, et alia a war), that's terrorism.
And it's a thing to be eradicated, at its root if possible, but by its branches when they bear their bitter fruit.
antiquated_tory makes my thoughts on it more relevant.What makes terrorism terrorism. This was addressed by some question and answer in my post about the mail with the device to make it ignite on opening (a whole new meaning to "flame wars").
And what of groups like the IRA?
Is there an acceptable use for terror?
Maybe.
When Michael Collins (to use the IRA as an example, because it's a subject near and dear to my Irish descended heart) was attacking the British he was using a form of terror. What the guerrillas in Spain did against the French when Napoleon invaded. It was more targeted than they were, but it was still aimed at those who were directly involved in the ruling of British Ireland.
As such, while unconventional, it was still war, and I could; had I been alive, have supported them with a clear conscience.
These days the Provos are in another kind of fight, one which is indiscriminate, and doesn't have such clear aims. They want the British out of N. Ireland, but they aren't trying to make a direct fight with the people running the show. In fact they don't always target those in N. Ireland (which isn't really required, they could make members of Parliament, who support the continuation of the status quo targets of assasination... I don't think I'd approve, but it would be a more legitimate fight... more akin to a war).
I'm a soldier, in the right context I am a legal target for some pretty indiscriminate lethal force (a 122mm rocket is not what anyone would call a precision weapon... neither is a hand grenade, it's just a matter of scale). If the Provos were attacking just soldiers, and administrators, and the government which supports and pays for it... it would be (in my mind) a form of legitimate struggle (none of this means I think such a thing is a good idea. The 80ish years since the founding of an independent south have changed the equation, as have the tactics of the Provos).
Which, I guess, defines what I mean by terrorism. I, as a soldier, have explicitly accepted that there are situations where killing people to gain my ends are acceptable. Some of those means are terrible, but those are the rules of the game.
Groups who try to sway an entire people without accepting a concomitant risk (and suicide as a tactic doesn't count... unless the target is of a military nature), people whose specific targets are the non-players (civilians in a war are different, one of the reasons I disagree with calling the struggle with bin Laden, et alia a war), that's terrorism.
And it's a thing to be eradicated, at its root if possible, but by its branches when they bear their bitter fruit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Terrorism
Date: 2004-09-23 03:36 pm (UTC)I dislike that formulation. In part because it becomes self-fulfilling.
This is kind of what I meant when I complained about the 'War on Terror' pulling in a bunch of non-related conflicts that are local in nature. Unfortunately I didn't think through that a 'struggle with Islamicism' does exactly the same thing. Chechnya, as you say, is a prime example; it's been going on for ages and was never about religion, or never primarily so.
Here I'm going to cheat and post a link to a BB post by a friend of mine who's very much a Russia wonk, because pretty much everything I know about Chechnya I know from her. (Also it's a great excuse to plug my home-away-from-home Board.)
However, I will say this--there is a brand of Saudi-funded radicalism that has been trying for years to increase its influence by subverting local struggles to their own global framework. By saying this I am not in the least disagreeing with your point that:
Would attention to the plight of Iraqis, and continued engagement in the difficulties of the Palestinian question (created by Arabs, and worsened by Isrealis) have prevented bin Laden from attacking us? No. But it might have kept the run of the mill Arab from thinking it justified.
And that is the root at which the evil needs to be dug up, the branch which rises from that despair is twisted, warped and bent to ends most would rather not see.
To wit, there is a heck of a lot of suffering in most of the Islamic world, it fuels desperation and we are seen as either not caring or actively contributing to it.
What to do about this is a heck of a question. Alleviating the plight of the Iraqis by invading their country may not have been the best idea, though the American Enterprise Institute evidently thought it would work. Could it if we'd committed a lot more resources (in the broadest sense) at the beginning? I expect you have a much better idea of that than I do.
Re: training imams. This is more something the Dutch started for internal reasons, as they were a bit tired of imams from Morocco who can't speak Dutch coming over and denouncing Dutch society. The Brits are considering something similar. Of course, they have state-sponsored religious training and we don't. So maybe wasn't that appropriate.
Re: showing the mass of Americans that Islam is not inherently a source of bloodthirsty fanatics. Couldn't agree more, but that might be part of the bigger problem that Americans tend to be dead poorly educated about the rest of the world. Of course, there has been a fairly effective campaign to educate against racism for years; no reason not to have a similar campaign on religions.
And our home grown-fanatics are definitely an underrated problem, though again I think they might be in part produced by a widespread parochialism, as is fanaticism in general, come to think of it (my friend Shahida complaining about her 'village idiot cousins' back in Pakistan who went to fight the Americans...).
Mind like a steel colander
Date: 2004-09-23 03:39 pm (UTC)Re: Terrorism
Date: 2004-09-23 05:11 pm (UTC)TK
Re: Terrorism
Date: 2004-09-27 10:57 pm (UTC)