Monday, November 09, 2009

Was It Terrorism Cont'd   [Jonah Goldberg]

A few good rebuttals:

From a political scientist:

Dear Jonah,
 
I’m sure you’re getting a whole lot of mail on this so I’ll be brief.
 
The terrorism charge seems to stick for two reasons: (1) the attacks don’t follow the conventions of war, and (2) the enemy is an amorphous collection of people who do not wear uniforms, do not take orders in a clear chain of command, and do not represent a specific government (yes, I know about Iran, but…).  These facts have given rise to the circumlocutions so many at NRO have been complaining about from the beginning, most especially “The War on Terror.”
 
We don’t really have an adequate set of terms to describe these acts because they don’t resemble acts of war committed by soldiers, but they are far more than criminal acts committed by individual and unaligned civilians.  The political advantage of the terrorism label is that it prevents the whole thing from slipping into the language of the courts and the criminal system.  I think you’d agree that we want to keep it out of there.  Calling such acts war crimes without dealing with the two points above lets people put emphasis on the word “crime” over the word “war.”  From there it is easy to talk about criminal prosecutions rather than making the rubble bounce.
 
Does this make any sense?

And from a reader:

Since he acted not as an agent of a recognized government, and while dressed or marked as a lawful enemy combatant, but indeed while dressed in the uniform of our country, cannot that make it an act of terror?

And:

Jonah,

As you likely are aware, there is much debate and little resolution regarding the definition of terrorism. Many definitions include intent, which seems fitting but may be difficult to judge.

I think that Georgetown professor and terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman is close to the mark with, "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change."(1) Hasan did create an environment of fear. It would be unreasonable to think that he would have thought his actions would not have done so. In addition, Hasan did feel strongly about a certain political objective, the US involvement in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Further note that Hoffman's definition, like some of the myriad definitions of terrorism, does not require civilian targets. Here there is an interesting point. Would a mortar attack upon a military base in Afghanistan create fear among the civilian population in the United States? Perhaps not. However, would a mortar attack upon a military base inside the United States create fear among the civilian population of the United States? Perhaps so.

The definition of terrorism, like that of fascism, seems to elude widespread consensus and understanding. That is one reason why I believe that National Review should maintain a wikipedia-like section on the NR website. Doing so would allow the conservative scholars to debate such issues and provide a reference for like-minded conservatives.

11/09 02:14 PMShare