The Foreign Service Journal, September 2004

As that anecdote illustrates, for many people a terrorist is someone whose objectives you don’t agree with — it is not a mat- ter of the instruments they use to advance those objectives. Thus Gavrillo Princip, the Serbian student whose shot at Austria-Hungarian Crown Prince Ferdinand in Sarajevo sparked World War I, was a hero to Serbians, but a “terrorist” to the Austrians. We have many con- temporary examples, as well: the Tamil Tigers who use violence against the Singhalese in Sri Lanka; the Palestinians who want relief from Israeli occupation; the Kashmiris who want self-determination; the Chechens who want independence from Russia; the Basques; and the IRA. Which are they, terrorists or freedom fighters — or both? To answer that thorny question, we first have to look at other questions. What do we mean by “terrorism”? Is it a new phenomenon, or does it have a history we need to understand? What motivates it? What instru- ments are best suited to combat it? And what do we make of the president’s “war on terrorism”? Is it winnable, and if so, how do we measure defeat or vic- tory? Or is terrorism (as some contend) something that cannot be defeated, but only managed? Finally, is ter- rorism ever justified — or is all terrorism the same: evil? If there can be “just” wars, are there not cases in which it could be “justified” to resort to weapons of ter- ror if all non-violent paths are closed to those who seek change in an unjust situation? The definition of terrorism I find most useful reflects Clausewitz’ famous description of war as a method of carrying on politics by other means: terrorism is the use of violence by individuals, groups or nations to intimidate or instill fear for the purpose of advanc- ing a political objective. And like formal warfare, terrorism frequently kills innocent by- standers, either deliberately or inadvertently (think of Naga- saki, Dresden, Lidice). Terrorism, then, is an instru- ment, a tactic, a technique. It is a weapon, not an enemy. Thus, in my judgment a “war” on terrorism makes no more sense than a “war” on war. I believe it was unfortunate that President Bush adopted this mantra, however politically useful the idea that we are “at war” may be for other purpos- es, such as rallying political support by appealing to patriotic feelings or curtailing inconvenient liberties. The president has conflated all forms of terrorism any- where, whatever their roots, into one undifferentiated ball of wax: do we really want to declare that violently resisting an alien occupation, overthrowing a tyrant, etc. makes you an “enemy” of the United States? How un-Jeffersonian! Or, to put it another way, the “war on terrorism” is best thought of as a metaphor, like the “wars” on crime or drugs or poverty. Taking the concept literally has led to a lot of confusion and policy errors, chief among them the assumption that military action is the primary tool with which to respond to terrorism. Compounding the confusion (deliberately or not), the administration persists in representing the conflict in Iraq as a part of the “war on terrorism.” As a result of such overheated rhetoric, millions of Americans continue to believe — despite the president’s belated admission to the contrary — that Saddam Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks, and that link (along with the claim we were under imminent threat from his weapons of mass destruction) justified our invasion. But in reality, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s relationship to terrorism has been, predictably, to increase the appeal of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organiza- tion. Indeed, support for al-Qaida has metastasized to F O C U S 44 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4 Ambassador Ronald Spiers was a Foreign Service offi- cer from 1955 to 1989, serving as minister in London, ambassador to the Bahamas, Turkey and Pakistan, assistant secretary for political-military affairs and for intelligence and research, and under secretary for man- agement. Following retirement from the Service, he served as U.N. under secretary-general for political affairs from 1989 to 1992. He writes and lectures on foreign affairs and is a fellow of the American Academy of Diplomacy. Al-Qaida, estimated to have a presence of some kind in over 60 countries, is the chief threat we need to concentrate on and choose the appropriate weapons to combat.