Matthew Paddock Blog Post #5

 Blog Post #5: How to define terrorism?

I became more interested in the process behind classifying certain events as acts of ‘terrorism’ after our class lecture in which we compared complex and controversial scenarios. I read an article written by Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institute in which he provides his own definition of terrorism and applies it to scenarios similar to what we discussed in class. I agree with certain tenets of Byman’s definition of terrorism but disagree with his analysis concerning if states can commit such actions.  

In my view, terrorism must involve violence or the threat of physical harm subjected upon non-violent actors. When designating something as an act of terrorism, I agree with Byman that a high level of violence should be the determining factor. Acts such as marches and stone throwing may be violent but would not constitute terrorism in my definition. Secondly, I argue that terrorism is inherently motivated by politics and is almost always effectuated to advance an ideological agenda. This important designation places terrorism in an entirely different category compared to a crime of personal passion or one that was committed by someone with a mental disorder. I disagree with Byman’s last point about terrorism in which he argues that it cannot be committed by state actors. I argue that it does not matter whether the act is committed by a member of a religious group (not affiliated with the state) or a regiment of soldiers who are under the control of the government. If severe physical harm is inflicted on non-violent individuals, I would still constitute this act as terrorism no matter the group executing the violence. It is clear that states have a long history of engaging in such activities, stretching from the ‘Reign of Terror’ during the French Revolution or the widespread murders of political opponents who threatened the political careers of Soviet leaders. As political scientist Ruth Blakely notes, state terrorism is not only about the destruction of those targeted, but it is also driven by the “opportunity afforded by the harm to terrorize others.” In other words, what unites these acts is a goal to punish but to intimidate on a broad scale as well.  

Byman presents a counterargument to my assertion that states can commit acts of terrorism. He utilizes Historian Henry Commager, who wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror." He argues that states are not trying to send political or ideological messages by engaging in such activities, instead framing their actions as necessary and preventative measures. Additionally, Byman states that individuals who accuse their governments of terrorism are normally seen as radicals, because "actions by legitimate governments are not generally seen as illegitimate." 

However, there are numerous problems with Byman’s counterargument. I believe states are inherently trying to send an ideological message when they operate in this manner. When the United States bombs an internet cafe in Yemen and civilians die, it is clear that our government is trying to send a message of dominance and control. Though framed as a preventative measure, I argue that many governments act prematurely which results in grave consequences like the deaths of innocent, non-violent people. Furthermore, if a drone is actively conducting reconnaissance over a village, emotions including fear and anxiety are certainly felt by everyone in that community (violent or not).

Even if governments designate their actions under the banner of ‘self defense,’ feelings of ‘terror’ are still being propagated across large swaths of a population, made up of many who are simply trying to survive and live peacefully. Thus, state terrorism should be recognized as a real and prevalent threat. Again, states’ motivations clearly involve politically or ideologically inspired acts of violence against individuals or groups they deem dangerous, in many cases outside of an armed conflict. The only difference is that agents of the states themselves are carrying out such violence.

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/09/22/who-is-a-terrorist-actually/