-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Terrorists, Terrorism, and Terrorist Acts
Refusing to seem them for what they are is just the response that their perpetrators like to see.
From the standpoint of operational intelligence there is no such thing as a truly “spontaneous” demonstration. The use of the term spontaneous implies there is no specific element that instigates an action. When some act is referred to as evolving through no initiating or organizing catalyst, the intent is to suggest there is no responsible actor creating the circumstance. This is what Barack Obama and his administration have attempted to do in regard to characterizing Islamic-based actions against non-believers.
In other words, President Obama at every occasion seeks to deflect or even exonerate possible organized Islamic religious sources from blame in such instances of conflict. Of particular priority for the Obama national security and foreign affairs staff is to not allow the term “terrorist” or terrorism” to be connected to acts proceeding from an Islamic-linked base. The objective of this practice appears to be to avoid condemnation of the religious identity as inspiration or root of the subject actions.
This policy would be a legitimate and theoretically effective diplomatic maneuver if there was any indication that such a tack would be accepted by the followers of violent forms of Islam as a peace-seeking gesture to which they would respond in kind. Unfortunately this is just not the case. The opposite is what occurs. Reasonable outreach by non-Islamic elements is viewed as weakness and something to be exploitated.
Terrorism is an end in itself. An act of terror, such as a crude explosive device thrown into an innocent crowd of commuters, establishes the chaos and insecurity that is both the device and the aim of the terrorist act. Terrorism instills fear into the target civilian community and engenders insecurity in the military or police organization assigned to protect it. This has been the motivation for terrorist acts by organizations ranging from criminal drug cartels to politically aimed insurgencies.
Acts of war are often characterized as having a terroristic objective. The firebombing of Dresden and other German cities during World War II has repeatedly been offered as an example. In turn the German bombing of Coventry has been given as justification for the British bombing of German cities. Military actions that result in terrorizing civilian populations occur in all wars. In this sense terrorist attacks can be explained away wherever conflict exists.
Terrorist tactics, however, when they are used to further religious belief or purportedly to defend such belief, have no justification in the Western cultural milieu dominated as it is by modern Judeo-Christian ethical concepts. Thus when a governmental administration refuses to acknowledge the existence of such acts, or seeks to characterize them in any form of benign manner in regard to the act itself or the motivation for such an act, that administration has unintentionally assisted the terrorist perpetrators.
What is hardest for most people to understand is that terrorists can evolve from any society — secular or religious. Furthermore, terrorist acts — and terrorism itself — is not merely the tool of the zealot or deranged. Any individual or group that believes itself to be deeply and purposely exploited can turn to terrorism as a weapon against its antagonists. It is this characteristic that has prompted the definition that terrorism is the tactic of the weak against the strong.
Societies have varying perceptions as to what is considered a terrorist act. There is general agreement among existing nation-states that any attack on an official diplomatic site of another country is not only a conscious effort to terrorize the personnel within that facility, but also intended as a message of violence to the nation represented. There never has been any leeway in the characterization of overt attacks on diplomatic missions.
The response of the current American presidency to the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was an attempt to obfuscate a clear situation in fear of an adverse reaction from Islamic leadership. It was also an effort by the Obama Administration to avoid overt recognition of what is considered legally and historically a cause for military intervention at a time when part of the Obama platform for reelection is avoidance of international conflict and the material and psychic costs involved.
Terrorism is the chosen instrument of radical Islam. It is a very effective weapon when dealing with a Western nation fearful of its own power. As the famed Bernard Lewis wrote, however, in his book The Crisis of Islam, “Sooner or later, Al Qa’ida and related groups will clash with other neighbors of Islam — Russia, China, India — who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities.”
It is too bad that President Barack Obama chooses not to read intelligence reports nor presumably many other sources of Middle Eastern history and culture. What is and is not terrorism is well defined by the tactics that are used and the result of those tactics. One thing is clear: It’s not as difficult a decision to discern these factors as Washington politicians and bureaucrats make it out to be — unless there is another agenda driving the issue.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/05/terrorists-terrorism-and-terro
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Razing Reagan
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Joellen| 10.5.12 @ 8:01AM
Mr. Wittman there is another agenda driving the issue and I do know you and the rest of the media know it, just like the readers do, however unlike the readers, you and the media continue to play this game. Christians are being executed, our soldiers are being slaughtered, our Ambassador is brutully tortured and murdered and you really think Obama and Hillary need to understand "their culture" and/or read the intelligence reports. WAKE UP over their in lala media land, and start reporting all the facts, including the facts that Obama/Hillary/Biden/Reid/Pelosi DO NOT have America's best interest first. Lets stop being vague about it and lets' shout it out over and over and over until November 6th so the people can make an educated choice and vote these Marxist out.
Bob K| 10.5.12 @ 8:11PM
Mr Wittman's article is not about the agenda you are raising and so he did not address it. It is about the Obama Administration's attempt to change the definition of terrorism for it's own political purposes and not as we or the rest of the world have come to understand it. He has explained that very well.
On difficult issues like these we need precise definitions if we are going to be able to deal with them. Because words and their definitions inevitably change over the years any attempts to change them for short term political benefits should be identified and discouraged.
The great contemporary historian, John Lukacs, has noted that " ... the history of ideas (indeed, of all human thought) is inseparable from the history of words." p. 117 "Democracy and Populism." 2005 Yale Univ. Press.
pogybait| 10.5.12 @ 9:08AM
When Obama is re-elected, he can create a cabinet post for them ending the use of intelligence reports completely....and if they ramp up their anti american rants, they could even get a teaching job at many of our universities.
cicero| 10.5.12 @ 12:58PM
The Islamists use terror because it works. Stalin used it, Mao used it, and the opposition to the French in Morrocco brought it to a fine art. The only way to deal with it is to make it unattractive to the would be perpetrators. They have to be run to ground and dispatched without respect.
When the Apaches were terrorizing the entire southwest, Gen. Cooke pursued them relentlessly until they could run no more, and were in danger of seeing themselves and their tribes destroyed. I would suggest that the civilized world do the same with the current terror groups. Run them down; kill them; cut off their heads; bury them wrapped in pigskins; send the photos around the world. To try to resolve this mess diplomatically is insane.
If any country refuses to cooperate, cut off all commerce, trade, aide, etc. If they give safe harbor, that is maybe why we should remain a superpower. We should not be taking no for an answer when the lives of innocents are at stake.
I have recommended before the formation of an Alliance of the English speaking peoples. The United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealond, India, etc. would be able to operate around the world to protect the interests of civilation. They wouldn't need the vote of Egypt, Syria, Russia, or China.
Bob K| 10.5.12 @ 7:40PM
Good luck with that Alliance Cicero! But I think that it is wishful thinking.
Abu Nudnik| 10.6.12 @ 7:04PM
This is a longstanding argument of great merit. Another precedent is the hunting down of the Barbary Coast pirates and the bombing of any harbor that let them in. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."
On the other hand, since they chose a high symbolic target I've always argued that Bush should have chosen one of his own and bombed Mecca and Medina. Nuke them and save a lot of lives in the short run.
Robert| 10.5.12 @ 11:32PM
Bernard Lewis is mistaken when he wrote, "Sooner or later, Al Qa'ida and related groups will clash with other neighbors of Islam -- Russia, China, India -- who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities."
Terrorists rarely attack systems which have the means and WILL to retaliate against terrorism with equal savagery. Terrorists are opportunistic exploiters. They attack societies who because of impotence, cowardice, or tolerance of dissenting views, refrain from retaliation in kind. This is the message the United States needs to take to heart. The day will come when we will again be challenged on our home turf as we were on 9-11. Our weakness in the face of the probing Al Qaeda did by attacking our consulate in Bengazi will surely embolden them to try again to bring down the US. How we respond will determine whether the barbarians or civilization triumphs in the end.
Abu Nudnik| 10.6.12 @ 7:00PM
Two points. Firstly, terrorism's definition needs clarification. Terrorism is any act or body of acts whose intention is to scare people into instituting what the terrorists want but cannot themselves achieve.
Secondly, while it's true that terrorism is usually "the tactic of the weak against the strong," it is not always so. The tactics of the Normans in their invasion of England show that it is sometimes a tactic of the strong against the more numerous. This is the case within Islamic countries themselves.
It bears repeating why we in the West oppose terrorism in favor of freely chosen contracts, including the orderly downfalls and replacements of our own governments. It places governance in our own hands, not someone else's.
OregonBuzz| 10.8.12 @ 9:07AM
"Terrorism is the chosen instrument of radical Islam."
No it is not. It is the chosen instrument of Islam, period. There is no "radical" or "moderate" Islam. Hear it from the mouth of the expert.
“There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan
When we can accept this truth and stop whitewashing Islam out of fear we will prevail. Otherwise, fugettaboudit
JJtheTraveler| 10.23.12 @ 10:03PM
I know this will sound trivial but here goes. Imagine if EVERYONE started calling these "terrorists" cowards. In all media and in all conversations we referred to them as cowards. What would happen?? Well I believe that over a short time period of say 5 years some profound changes would occur. The mindset of Joe Average (worldwide) would change and so would the self image of these cowards. Language shapes how we perceive ideals. They would no longer have the macho image if they were constantly referred to as cowards. I believe that a simple change of a name would change perception and could change the world.