Terrorism in Context: From Tactical to Strategic

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." That phrase, arguing that some uses of terrorism can be a legitimate form of resistance against tyranny, has bedeviled discussion and analysis of terrorism for years. This has been especially true in the modern era, with the prominence of national-liberal movements pursuing nationalism as a prime political value. The collapse of the nineteenth-century empires required the application of force by fairly classic nationalities operating from initial weakness. In more recent days, even more or less solidified nation-states have become subject to actors representing ever-smaller self-proclaimed racial, ethnic, religious, and class entities.

One way to deal with the intellectual problems posed by the statement is to remind ourselves that terrorism is a tactical use of violence, not a strategy or policy in itself. Therefore we can apply a variation of the old "just war" question: what is the alleged injustice that can justify terrorist tactics used against civilians and bystanders? This test does not invalidate the argument implied in the basic freedom-fighter argument that the end justifies the means. This position is explicitly accepted by major terrorist leaders and spokespeople who justify their tactics as required by their weak power position vis-à-vis their opponents. They thereby implicitly admit that certain acts are extreme but justify them as all that is available to them at the moment—a practical, not an intellectual or theoretical, justification. Those who wish to justify extreme violence can always do so by their own lights.

The significant aspect of the dilemma is that, while terrorist acts may be considered immoral by most people, they are not mindless. And both ancient and modern history provides many examples of their effectiveness.

One way to address the issue is to turn the cliché around: one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Disapproving of a particular act of violence as terrorism, like any other unjustified act, therefore becomes subject to the principle once coined for the question of determining pornography: you recognize it when you see it.

The Historical Context

Terrorism has been with us for all of recorded history. It has often attracted inordinate attention because of its dramatic character and sudden occurrence. It had always been a tragedy for victims but generally only a nuisance in historical terms, with relatively small numbers involved, although we do have the example of the assassination of an Austrian archduke and World War I.

Now, however, terrorism claims greater attention for two reasons. Present-day practitioners of terrorism have introduced a new scale of violence, which threatens not only specific fragile national governments but also the stability of the international state system, including developments such as globalization. Modern technology and globalization, itself, make this possible. Second, terrorism as a tactic has been increasingly adopted by the growing number of nationalist insurgents around the world. Terrorism is, therefore, now more strategic in character.

There are hundreds of definitions of terrorism. The US State Department defines it thusly: "The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agencies, usually intended to influence an audience."

In essence, all definitions are reorderings of the following considerations:

1. 1. Terrorism always involves violence or the threat of violence.

2. 2. Terrorism is violence, but not every form of violence is terrorism.

3. 3. Guerrilla and insurgency warfare are not the same as terrorism, although they are often intertwined.

4. 4. Classic terrorism is "propaganda of the deed," which is even more important in today's world given the ubiquity of modern media.

5. 5. Terrorism is always a secondary choice, even among insurgents.

The Context of Today

Terrorism in any one historical moment takes place in and takes some of its shape from that particular moment. Today, of course, we are in what is called for lack of a better term the post–Cold War world. This situation has several characteristics. First of all, the removal of the global political guidelines (two competing hegemons and a gaggle of opportunists) left us with no obvious international political architecture, despite a brief...