George Bush’s Administration coined the phrase “war on
terrorism” post 9/11. Everyone knew what
it meant. The terrorists were Bin Laden,
Al Qaeda and its adherents world-wide.
But there was a lack of precision in that label that has led
to confusion in identifying America’s enemies.
President Obama has been notoriously hesitant to use the
word “terror”.
So when an Army major, who had previously professed his
sympathy for Al Qaeda, killed 13 of his fellow soldiers in 2009, the
Administration called the event “workplace violence” instead of a terrorist
act.
Leave aside whether the characterization was accurate,
was it terrorism?
No. Terror is a
tactic meant to intimidate. It is used
to frighten one’s foes into ceasing resistance or acquiescing to one’s
objectives.
As such, terrorists usually target civilians. The purpose is to weaken their support for
their military and government.
Some examples:
Nazi Germany’s London bombing campaign in the early stages of World War
II. Later, Britain’s fire-bombing
Dresden and America’s nuclear explosion over Hiroshima. [Yes, the U.S. has resorted to terror,
too. It broke the Japanese will to
resist further and ended the Pacific war.]
In reality, then, the fight against Al Qaeda is miscast
as a war on terror. Of course, the
demolition of New York’s twin towers fits but does the attack on the Pentagon
the same day?
Was Major Hassan trying to affect American policy or kill
as many Fort Hood soldiers as possible?
Were the Boston bombers making a political statement or
trying to murder or maim the maximum number of people?
Take the radical Islamists at their word. They want to kill westerners and Americans in
particular. Violence can be a tactic; it
can also be an end in itself. For our
enemies, “death to infidels” is not merely a chant. It’s their motivation.
So what difference does the label make? Is it mere semantics?
I suggest not. To
fight effectively, we must know who the enemy is. It is not a tactic.
No comments:
Post a Comment