Tuesday, February 7, 2012

What is your definition of "Terrorism" or "Terror"?

Hi all-

Claus, one of our regulars, came up with a good question on the last thread. The thread itself was imo jim's attempt to understand what terror/terrorism can generally be assumed to be, by those of us who read and understand and can communicate ideas . . . mike and jim's discussion triggered my comment which in turn allowed for Claus's . . .

So, here we are. And we have a long way to go. And things will have to go a bit slow, which ain't bad, since I have a lot of things to do, and ya'll do too. So, gentlemen, and any ladies out there, let's sit back, take our time, and think this baby out . . .

First off, "my" definition of terrorism:

"violence intended to coerce the enemy rather than weaken him militarily"

Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence, 1966, page 17.


Or rather Thomas Schelling's definition, which operates within a strict Clausewitzian strategic theory "framework". That is why he can make it in 11 words . . .

Terror/terrorism is a method, not a tactic or a strategy. Schelling is - it should go without saying - a master Clausewitzian theorist.

Terror as simply coercion of course is all about sending a message. The method by which the message is sent allows for any type of political message. In Libya last year and Syria this, the governments intended to send a clear message, that is the tyranny would continue. Resistance is futile. How effective would you judge that to be from the recent history? Elsewhere, where has it been successful, and where not?

Lenin's concept of terror, on the other hand, provided the flip side to his propaganda operations. Coercion to convince any half-believers that the old regime would not be coming back, the "remnants" were rather going to be annihilated. His concept of the absolute enemy was after all a political one . . .

"Al Qaida" terror? Self-defeating. In other words seemingly more the nature of a pawn, or even a distraction?

Does the US use terror? Given this definition, I think you would have to say we do . . .

So, first a definition from you all, and then my second question . . .

In your opinion, what would be the best weapon of terror?

67 comments:

  1. seydlitz.
    don't we need to limit the definition to something like-what is terrorism as defined by us law and our pwot?
    do we care about any other terror?.
    i DO NOT accept your defin. as it does not address symbolic use of violence, nor do you consider the effect on the target audience beyond the victims. the victims are meaningless- the message is the meaning.
    in addition I WILL NEVER ACCEPT the word ENEMY being used in a T. context. if this is a criminal event then they are crims not enemies. an enemy is a legit concept.
    btw -i have been attempting to understand this topic for a long time. i ain't a clausewitzian expert, but i reckon this means that i can just stay confused.
    jim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. seydlitz,
    back at you.
    if they are enemy then you just kill their asses. i reckon after 10 years attempting this, and killing 93 number 3 aq guys, this is not the way to do it.
    i ain't a strategic kinda guy , but we're obviously barkin' up the wrong tree.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know if this is a simple question, seydlitz.

    The dictionary definition is simply "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." and I'd accept that as a perfectly valid way to describe this, except I'd add the descriptor "irregular" to "violence" to distinguish it from the sort of state-terrorism embodied in regular warfare (since what is "warfare" other than using violence for political purpose - at least warfare conducted by sane politicians...)

    So urban gangsters flourishing their nines to force the Korean store owners to pay them protection? Terrorism.

    AQ blowing up buildings to try and force the U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia? Terrorism...of a sort - I believe that bin Laden wasn't kidding when he wrote that he used "terrorism" not as a mobilizing force (that is, to get his target to retreat) but as an antagonizer - his intent, and his success, was to prompt the Great Satan to go utterly bugnuts in the Middle East.

    AQ blowing up Shiite pilgrims in Basra? Terrorism, and I'll agree with you, self-defeating.

    Syria killing protestors? The U.S. drone-striking Waziris in the FATA? State-terrorism of the Leninist sort.

    My caveat would be that attacks on troop units do NOT count as "terrorism" in my book. "Asymmetric warfare", "Guerrilla warfare", but not "terrorism".

    ReplyDelete
  4. To me the crucial item of this definition is the target. If you're bombing factories, that's war. If you're bombing residential subdivisions, that's terrorism. The former has at least a tangential military purpose. The latter is purely to sow fear, hate, and make the targets force their political leaders to do what the terrorists want to make the killing stop.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chief and Sedlitz,
    using your definitions leads one to conclude that all violence is terrorism.notzso.
    Terror and terrorism are not the same things. they are not interchangeable terms. i can cause terror w/o being a terrorist.the korean and the 9 is an example.
    are there any attys in the audience?what is the us doj legal definition of terrorism?
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  6. jim-

    Thanks for commenting. By my reading, "terrorism" as defined by the US government does not include state terror.

    You commented:

    --i DO NOT accept your defin. as it does not address symbolic use of violence, nor do you consider the effect on the target audience beyond the victims. the victims are meaningless- the message is the meaning. --

    In my post I wrote, "Terror as simply coercion of course is all about sending a message."

    I fail to see where we are in disagreement. As to not being a "Clausewitzian", leave that part to me. My goal here is to make this concept/method comprehensible to "those of us who read and understand and can communicate ideas", which imo includes you.

    As to the clear distinction between criminality and criminal acts, and "terrorism" I very much agree with what you have stated on your thread. Your comments there were ones I agree with . . . so if you limit terrorism to war, how can it not have to do with "enemies"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seydlitz, Jim has a point there.

    "War is . . . an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." (On War)

    Going by Schelling, all war is terror, because all war is meant to coerce. Does that make it terrorism?

    Incidentally, Jim, Wikipedia has a quite long article on the topic, including legalese from various countries and codes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chief-

    I think it is a simple definition, it is our current politics which makes it difficult to deal with . . . the assumptions have to be challenged and that can hurt . . .

    The dictionary definition you offer works except with the "especially for political purposes". I would limit it to political purposes, especially when using the term "terrorism".

    So I would argue the urban gangsters you mention are not using terrorism at all but simple intimidation with criminal intent.

    You commented:

    --My caveat would be that attacks on troop units do NOT count as "terrorism" in my book. "Asymmetric warfare", "Guerrilla warfare", but not "terrorism".--

    Reread Schelling's definition . . . we are in agreement. Attacking a military target would weaken the other side militarily, whereas bombing civilians would be coercive violence against an non-military target . . . thus terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. jim-

    You commented:

    --using your definitions leads one to conclude that all violence is terrorism.notzso.--

    No, if the target is military or military related it is not. If I bomb a munitions plant it weakens the military potential of the enemy. If I destroy railroad tracks, I am degrading the enemy's capacity to move and supply his forces. If I attack a fortified position I attack the enemy's military strength. This is NOT terrorism by Schelling's definition.

    However if I lead my SS company to Oradur and massacre the inhabitants of the town in order to coerce the Marquis to stop interdicting the movement of SS Division Das Reich to Normandy, it is an act of terrorism, or terror . . .

    ReplyDelete
  10. seydlitz,
    we're not talking about war here.
    isn't this a discussion of terror and terrorism?
    if a oss man ambushed a single, drunk wehrmacht soldier by cutting his throat is this not terror producing?
    but my point is that we keep bringing it back to soldiering and war fighting.. the pwot is not ,NOT, warfare.all the military action in afgh and irq didn't do dick to lessen the aq threat.
    plain and simple.
    let's focus on what is the threat facing the us in 2012, not what we imagine it to be.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  11. Claus-

    Clausewitz deals with coercion in sections 3-4 of Book I, Chapter 1. Coercion has to do with the second interaction to the extreme. But there is a clear distinction between "force" and "coercion" . . . in fact it is this distinction which Bernard Brodie's student Thomas Schelling dealt with in his classic book where I find my definition . . .

    Coercion is much more versatile that force . . . Consider the reason that Imperial Germany signed the Armistice in 1918 . . . as compared to the collapse of the Third Reich in 1945 . . . how could one find a clearer example of the distinction between the two concepts . , . ? And the political contexts separating them . . .

    I was particularly expecting a definition of terrorism from you . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. jim-

    You commented:

    --if a oss man ambushed a single, drunk wehrmacht soldier by cutting his throat is this not terror producing?--

    No, it was an act of violence against the enemy. If the OSS man had slit the throat of a kid . . . that would be terrorism.

    WE have to deal with the simple fact that we have been at war for over 10 years now. Ask the Iraqis, or the Afghanis, or the Pakistanis, or the Yemenis, or the Somalis . . . if in fact we have not been at war? Have we not consistently used violence and coercion to achieve our stated or assumed political ends?

    Threats? What threats? There are none, at least externally.

    We wage these wars for our own interests. Since 9/11 the US public has been sold a Global War on Terror which has been expanded consistently to include an ever longer list of enemies or rather targets . . . it still goes on in regards to Iran, btw.

    This thread isn't about threats, it's about simple definitions. And maybe how difficult those definitions are in fact to deal with . . .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, I think there are definitions and "definitions", and in war as in politics, it matters whether you're strong or weak.

    The strong do what they can, so the U.S. conveniently ignores the "example" we set at Nuremburg when it comes to launching aggressive war when it's in OUT interests...and the Yamashita Doctrine when our own general officers are no more effective at working to stop torture and murder among their troops than what we hung the unfortunate general for in 1946.

    The weak suffer what they must, so while the dead guys in Manhattan and DC are heroes and martyrs, the dead guys who get whacked by missiles trying to help their pals who have been blown up by another missile are...terrorists.

    I would simply say that "definitions" are really immaterial to the present conflict. For one thing, even the term "The War on Terrorism" is complete bullshit. Did we fight the LTTE? Are we fighting the ETA? Are we helping the Russians fight the Chechens, or the Congolese fight the FDLR?

    You might have more precisely called it The War on (Certain Groups of Muslims who practiced) Terror(ism among other methods against the U.S. or our allies) and it would have meant as much, or as little.

    For what it's worth, I WILL argue that much of modern industrial warfare, in particular "strategic bombing" is practically indistinguishable from terrorism. Does it matter to the widow or the orphan whether their dad the busboy was killed by a car bomb or a Mk 83 GP bomb delivered from 1,500 ft AGL?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The problem with definitions is when they are only your own, they are rather meaningless. Language is a means to interact with others and exchange information. To do that, you have to understand each other. When one guy speaks a different "language" - and for that purpose, that also means using different definitions - than the other, exchange of information becomes difficult if not impossible.

    So one's personal definition is rather useless if no one else shares is. And the UN has been trying for quite a while now to agree on one. The crucial point seems to be that some of the powers that be would like to exempt actions by military forces if covered by other conventions. Very conveniently, because then you can say "If anything, it's a war crime, but it's not terrorism...". Which is even more convenient when one - contrary to said conventions - accepts no outside arbitration whether it actually IS a war crime or not.... Some other nations seem to prefer a formulation where it does only then not fall under "terrorism" if it is actually compliant with international law. Meaning that war crimes can be terrorism at the same time.

    As a shot from the hip, I'd say that since the term comes from "terror", an element of spreading fear has to be present. I was thinking about suggesting that the target has to be indescriminate, but I reconsidered. The problem here is that there CAN be discrimination in terror campaigns, for example against ethnic groups. Though all too often, the targeting is rather fuzzy - a bomb doesn't ask if it shreds a Tamil or a Singhalese, an Catholic or a Protestant, a Sunni or a Shiite. All that can be done is planting it in such a way that the probability of "them" being hit is higher. But it really doesn't end there. Take the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientist. Suppose someone went on a spree to off all Iranian nuclear scientists.... where does it stop being "just" a serial killer and start being terrorism? Or is it never terrorism because the goal is not to spread terror in the general public but only among nuclear scientists?

    Frankly, I have no idea, and as a trained (non-nuclear) scientist, I am far too reluctant to claim to have found truth(TM). What I do know is that the world doesn't allows allow itself to be packaged into nice little clean boxes. Which is one reason why we have judges to decide whether a certain act falls within a certain definition on a case-by-case basis. Of course, they also need to have a framework to work with, but one that's agreed on not just by individuals but by the representatives of those accepting the jurisdiction of the court.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think definitions are important as not only a starting point but as a yardstick. They allow us to in fact see how far we have come.

    I didn't come up with my own definition, I used that of Thomas Schelling from a book that was written 44 years ago. That book has been acclaimed as the "best book on strategy written since 1945" by Martin van Creveld no less. Schelling and his book have been highly influential, would it not be a basic assumption that strategic theory has been taught to our military commanders via staff and war colleges for some time? So a basic definition from a well-known author (in strategic theory/policy circles as least) . . . . but oh how far we have strayed from the time when government institutions were organized along strategic theory lines, as Eisenhower did during his two terms in office. You start getting an idea of the level of decay and corruption within our national policy/military institutions . . .

    That "terrorism" today isn't really defined, but used as a pejorative label for our various enemies says much about the current political climate. Ambiguity as to political purpose, narrow interests sold as national policy or even questions of existential survival . . . all indicate a high level of propaganda/manipulation of information to confuse and mislead the public, not only in the US but elsewhere.

    I didn't say this would be easy, rather the opposite, as in "we have a long way to go". I think Schelling's definition useful and adequate for our tasks, but the problem is not the definition, but what it shows us as a yardstick about our current political reality and yawning chasm between what we say/the assumed/supposed purpose behind actions/institutions and the reality as our "lying eyes" indicate, that is our actions and what they have in fact brought about since 2001 if not before.

    As I have repeatedly said, the big questions today are basic political ones, but they are much easier to avoid or deny than to confront and deal with. The current presidential campaign is a prime example of that . . .

    ReplyDelete
  16. claus,
    the target is ALWAYS symbolic and is aimed at an audience beyond the physical act.
    chief is right that bombing hamburg,london,warsaw,leningrad,tokyo,hanoi were terror bombing. the targets were beyond the bombs bursting radius.
    i believe that the us response to 9-11 shows that strong action is often based on weakness and poor policy choices.
    when we terror bomb we are trying to get the gov't to listen to the misery of their people. when a indig terror grp bombs they are trying to get the gov't to over react. this aids recruitment and funding for the group.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  17. seydlitz,
    i'd suggest that countering T is not about strategy.
    our entire pwot is/was as you opine, but it all is based on feminine intuition and hard guy sheriff talk that cannot/will not , and shall not ever translate out to a viable policy or any strategic thinking.
    WE ARE AS WEAK AS THE T/AQ. ALL OUR REACTIONS HAVE BEEN NOTHING BUT ACTS/DISPLAYS of raging bull like a bull frustration. that ain't strategy.!
    e sad part is that our NCA doesn't even realize this. they respond with bullshit words like asymetrical war and COIN, as if that changes the reality.
    it's not that we are strategic thinkers, it's that we aren't thinking at all. we're reacting in emotional knee jerkism.definitions don't affect this.my definitions of T were what the DOD used to use , and were based on US code.definitions don't matter b/c our leaders have done whatever and when ever regardless of the reality.
    definitions matter to me.
    jim
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  18. Chief,
    did you read woodwards book-BUSH AT WAR?
    it discusses the concept that you discuss.
    the whole thing boils down to -is it military/war, civilian/criminal ,or a combo.
    before you can decide you must define the terms, and doing so on 9-12 did not work.
    also being reactive to the problem indicates that we NEVER had the initiative, and NEVER will in the Terror arena. so maybe we need to adapt our thinking, especially since we've violated every prin of war since 9-11.
    we have politicized our military thinking, and militarized our political philosophy.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chief,
    did you read woodwards book-BUSH AT WAR?
    it discusses the concept that you discuss.
    the whole thing boils down to -is it military/war, civilian/criminal ,or a combo.
    before you can decide you must define the terms, and doing so on 9-12 did not work.
    also being reactive to the problem indicates that we NEVER had the initiative, and NEVER will in the Terror arena. so maybe we need to adapt our thinking, especially since we've violated every prin of war since 9-11.
    we have politicized our military thinking, and militarized our political philosophy.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very good discussion. IMO, and I think I can safely say that there's agreement here with this statement, that terrorism is merely a matter of perspective.

    And that language will always be imprecise in trying to explain abstractions.

    To Chief's gangster, his shakedown of the store owner is just a matter of business, to the store owner, terrorism.

    To seydlitz's SS commander on the way to the front, the destruction of a possible hindrance to achieve a military purpose is insurance not only to eliminate one threat to his command, but also to influence other townspeople on his way to stay inside their homes. To the townspeople, terrorism.

    I think, however, we must look beyond what terrorism IS and examine what terrorism ACCOMPLISHES as well.

    I'm sure you all are aware of the recent dust-up between SG Komen and Planned Parenthood. There's a story at TPM about another PP had to face some years ago, similar to what they experienced with Komen.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/why-planned-parenthood-fighting-defunding-with-fire.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    When AT&T decided to cut its funding, Planned Parenthood’s president, Faye Wattleton, asked them to simply do so quietly. “I requested that they do so in a manner that would not encourage other corporations to back down,” Wattleton told TPM, “that would not empower the anti-choice organizations.” Instead, AT&T went public, and as Wattleton had warned AT&T over the phone, Planned Parenthood retaliated.

    The women’s health group launched a national campaign, running ads in major newspapers with the headline “Caving to extremists, AT&T hangs up on Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood received an outpouring of support and AT&T had to battle a public relations crisis similar to what the Komen Foundation faces now.


    In my view, "terror" is an attempt to coerce by force or by threat of force. No matter who or what established authority does it.

    The trouble with terror, however, is that the target often brings back terror of its own kind in reply.

    In AT&T's case, much more than they anticipated.

    BTW, I've read online many predictions that Komen will not exist within a few years.

    I hope you all will help that come to pass.

    When terror is seen not to accomplish its intended outcomes, or the user of terrorism comes to ruin, maybe there'll be less of it going 'round.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  21. From the article I quoted above, and another point to bolster my comment on the problem with terrorim.

    “If you go to kill the king, the king must die,” says Gloria Feldt, who served as president of Planned Parenthood from 1996-2005, on the impact of the AT&T decision, “because if he doesn’t, you will.”

    That sounds like sound strategy to me.

    an edit:

    about another "problem" PP had to face


    bb

    ReplyDelete
  22. For a comment on seydlitz's last question, what's the best weapon of terror, my answer, there is none.

    My solution to coerce people who don't like you to change their ways.

    27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

    But I fear that when that all comes to pass, we'll all be standing around in Glory singing hymns.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  23. jim-

    I don't think terrorism a tactic or a strategy but a method. "Counter-terrorism" would be a counter-method, like anti-submarine warfare for example.

    US policy such as it is, is to maintain dominance, period. 9/11 imo provided our political elite with the golden opportunity to exercise unrestrained military force in the ME/Central Asia and to impose tight restrictions at home. It seems that our elite finds it best to promote an atmosphere of constant and unending war in order to maintain dominance, both at home and abroad . . .

    ReplyDelete
  24. So, what do we call it when we OK terror strikes even on
    US citizens abroad?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/liberals-dems-approve-of-drone-strikes-on-american-citizens-abroad/2012/02/08/gIQAIqCzyQ_blog.html

    Liberals, Dems approve of drone strikes on American citizens abroad

    By Greg Sargent

    The Post has just released some new polling that demonstrates very strong support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies, including 83 percent of Americans approving of his use of drone strikes against terror suspects overseas.

    This finding, however, is particularly startling:

    What if those suspected terrorists are American citizens living in other countries? In that case do you approve or disapprove of the use of drones?

    Approve: 65

    Disapprove: 26

    The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

    And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team.

    It’s hard to imagine that Dems and liberals would approve of such policies in quite these numbers if they had been authored by George W. Bush.
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. bb-

    You commented:

    -In my view, "terror" is an attempt to coerce by force or by threat of force. No matter who or what established authority does it.

    The trouble with terror, however, is that the target often brings back terror of its own kind in reply.

    In AT&T's case, much more than they anticipated.-

    Maybe I've missed something, but where is the connection of terrorism/terror with "AT&T"?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Political terror can be just as troublesome as that produced from a weapon.

    As the article indicates, PP was willing to let ATT go in peace, but ATT turned it into a political issue when they advertized publically that they dropped funding from PP.

    I can't tell you the purpose of ATT's action in that matter. But it can be construed as "terror" to put PP into its place.

    In retaliation against PP daring to tell them what to do?

    Self aggrandizement?

    As an attack to encourage other donors to follow ATT's actions?

    It's obvious that PP saw ATT's actions as a threat, so they acted.

    According to my defintion of terror, "coercion by force or by threat of force", the threat to PP's existence in their belief was real enough.

    There's a story out of Arkansas not too long ago. A Democratic candidate for US Rep. ( also a veteran of Iraq btw ), his whose cat was killed, the word "liberal" marked on the body, and thrown onto his front porch.

    Was this terrorism? Yes, imo it is, as much as the burning crosses on black families' lawns all the way up to McVeigh's action in Oklahoma.

    As you say above:

    As to the clear distinction between criminality and criminal acts, and "terrorism" I very much agree with what you have stated on your thread. Your comments there were ones I agree with . . . so if you limit terrorism to war, how can it not have to do with "enemies"?

    Inuendo ( saber rattling ), existential threat ( sanctions and blockades ), threatening action ( covert sabotage here and there ), active action ( war and hostilities ) in my view are all versions of terrorism.

    Granted my background is classroom management, but I can tell you that I've had to deal with all these I've mentioned.
    And as various news stories bear out, these teenage terrorisms can lead all the way up to murder.

    And looking at the national and international scenes, I am convinced we never leave high school.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  27. bb-

    You're describing non-violent coercion, not terrorism . . . or terror . . .

    ReplyDelete
  28. To seydlitz,
    we agrre on a lot, but i feel that you constantly militarize the concept of Terrorism , and then bemoan the fact. you are part of it.
    we do not need to define T -WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT WE ARE.
    if we are constant and true to our ideals then does it matter what the T's may say or do?
    the disconnect is that we are worse than them.
    that's my cheery start to a new day.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  29. To all, another point about killing military etc.
    let's go back to the H'burg RAF atk on Gen . Kroesen. the weapon was a military rpg since there are no civilian versions of this destructive device.
    kroesen=military
    rpg=mil.
    raf=terrorism
    if he were killed this was not an act of war , nor was he a legitimate target since there was no state of beligerancy. groups can't declare war.
    this event was a act of terror and NOT A LEGITIMATE
    ACT OF WAR.
    the FRG treated this act as a criminal act which is exactly what it was. it was warrior hood then, nor is it now.just being in a uniform does not always make one a legit. target.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  30. seydlitz,
    if t is a method and counter t is the reaction then this begs the question- what/who is the proponent agency?????remember it ain't the u-505.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  31. seydlitz,
    if t is a method and counter t is the reaction then this begs the question- what/who is the proponent agency?????remember it ain't the u-505.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  32. BB and seydlitz,
    bb -i agree w.seydlitz.
    T ALWAYS is a criminal act. what you describe is not w/i that grid square.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  33. jim-

    Very interesting comments . . . you commented:

    --we agrre on a lot, but i feel that you constantly militarize the concept of Terrorism , and then bemoan the fact. you are part of it.
    we do not need to define T -WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT WE ARE.--

    I haven't militarized the concept, the US government has militarized and politicized it. I simply point that out. Also from a strategic theory perspective, following Schelling, terror/terrorism is a type of military coercion, so why not think of it in that way? It does make things clearer I think and avoids the self-serving use of metaphor . . .

    Define what we are? Based on what I see, we're an oligarchy, which leaves us Fussvolk out of the deliberations . . . by definition.

    ReplyDelete
  34. seydlitz,
    ok.
    i see that u reflect the gov'ts position.
    sorry.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  35. S:

    You're describing non-violent coercion, not terrorism . . . or terror

    Terrorism and violence are all in the eye of the beholder, or receiver.

    "Nice family you got there, friend" on the surface is a friendly compliment in most cases, but in the proper context, terrorism.

    But then we belong to different contexts.

    Here is mine.

    1 Jn. 3:15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

    The famous quote:

    The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton

    To a victim of childhood bullying, as trivial as it may seem, it can also be the birthing ground of terrorism.

    And to re-iterate, we never leave high-school.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  36. bb-

    It's all metaphor. "We never leave HS"? More like we never leave the sandbox, but what does that say? What exactly does that have to do with terrorism?

    Do you agree or not that one of the main problems we have today is the basic corruption of language? Is not that one of the main problems we have had with US government policy and the manipulation we have seen since 2001, if not before?

    Chief and Al have talked about this many times. We don't really have any idea what war is in the US anymore. We see it through hollywood lenses . . . everything is "war" so why not everything as "terrorism"?

    Following that, one of the biggest domestic problems we have in the US today is our drug policy, which we are unable to change since we think of it in terms of a war metaphor. By changing or liberalizing our drug laws as has happened here in Portugal btw, we would be "surrendering" in this long war of good versus evil . . . so we continue on the same route irregardless of the cost, as we see south of the border . . . We're prisoners of our own metaphors you could say, the nihilist right as much as "the left", but then I don't really have a dog in either camp . . . which allows me to trash both sides . . .

    ReplyDelete
  37. Seydlitz,
    the good v. evil is the key to this.
    again, i'm back to BUSH AT WAR. the entire WOT was fit into this statement.
    how does one fight evil?? what strategy is involved?? do you drop bibles from a b 52??
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  38. My definition of terror is end product of a strategy in which the objective of the execution of the plan is to enforce a belief by the target to act in a way that they will behave in an anticipated manner that will be beneficial to my objectives.

    Hence, if I want people to release a individual, I would announce that I would begin to take random hostages.
    Outcome: more than likely I would be ignored.
    Action: I take random hostages.
    Outcome: I'm now taken seriously.
    Response: citizenry want their loves one back.
    The "terrorism" in this was at the beginning in which I announced I would take random hostages, but since no one believed me, I take random hostages, now suddenly the populace feels vulnerable. "why didn't we believe him?"

    At issue is that terrorism doesn't work until it is repeated often enough that the populace believes before the event that the actions can, and will occur.

    Which brings me to 9/11.

    Was 9/11 a terrorist attack?

    I say no.

    9/11 was an act of war, and not a terrorist attack.

    The terror portion of 9/11 is that it could happen again, but that came after...and who benefited from that statement?
    Osama Bin Laden? No, Osama Bin Laden saw 9/11 as a one time event as a kick in the teeth of the dragon.

    No, the terrorism portion of 9/11 was that the government used that moment as a lever against the American public to sway the populace to act in a way that the George W. Bush WhiteHouse wanted them to act, and hence, the reason why the war in Iraq was an easy sale to the US populace.
    "Mushroom cloud over an American city" was a manipulation of 9/11's collapse of the twin towers and the rising dust cloud which brought to mind to the listeners of Ms. Rice that if we don't act now, now, now...the end is nigh.

    So, for me, I think that the US employs terrorism against it's own citizenry by taking single acts of violence and enlarging them to the individual imagination that encompasses a nihilistic view, and triggers the individual's self-preservation of "do what we have to do to survive, and fuck the rest of the world!"

    ReplyDelete
  39. sheer,
    i understand your thinking but 9-11 could not be an act of war by definition.
    have you like gwb given it a new definition that ignores international law.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  40. jim-

    I think sheer's got a very interesting point. The way I understand it, 9/11 was a criminal act, but was portrayed as an act of war by the US government. Thus an act of mass murder was labelled an act of terrorism for political purposes. Al Qaida hyped as a global and existential threat to justify what was expected to be a global US response.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Seydlitz,
    i'm reading a book about SIR WALTER RALEIGH and in it the british portrayed the Spanish in much the same light that we present aq to the public mind.
    and so it goes.
    if a very smart man like sheer. buys into the bullshit then i fear for all of us.
    violence always wins.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now my answer to the second question. What would be the best weapon of terror?

    Most who have followed what I have written probably have a good idea as to my answer, but let's look for a moment at what the requirements are.

    To be effective in exercising coercion as terror, the weapon would have to be able to impose both deterrence and what Schelling describes as "compellance" on the target political community. Think of them as two sides of the same coercion/terror coin, the passive and active approaches. The threat would have to also be a proven one with a history of unrestricted violence behind it. The threat would ideally impose little or no loss damage/suffering on the aggressor which would make resistance even more seemingly futile. Finally the threat would have to be constant and literal, not intermittent and abstract. No imagination would be necessary to understand the effect of what the weapon could do . . .

    Which leads me to name the "drone" or RPA as the ideal weapon of terror.

    ReplyDelete
  43. seydlitz:

    It's all metaphor. "We never leave HS"? More like we never leave the sandbox, but what does that say? What exactly does that have to do with terrorism?

    It says a lot. Our brains are not fully developed until we're well into the 20s. The last bits to mature are those parts of the brain that control impulse, the parts that extrapolate what one does now to imagine what that likely outcome of that action might be, and deciding what benefits or harms might come from doing anything.

    IOW, critical thinking and higher level rationality.

    Without a doubt, the Spartans had something good going for them when they felt that a citizen could not be a fully-fledged Spartiate until the age of 30.

    The terrorist really does not have to think of what might happen after the event.

    I should have expanded upon my earlier definition of terrorism, "coerce by force or threat of force against those not prepared to expect such force.

    Yes, I agree that our drones make fine weapons of terror, as they are capable of destroying both foe and friend without warning.

    And I think that's one major key to understand what terrorism is.

    The randomness, the pointlessness.

    A clip to illustrate. A complaint and good sound advice does not usually invite this reaction shown here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKie_34cpJI&feature=

    I have more to say on the "corruption of language", but gotta go.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  44. Been away for a while, so late to the fray. "Terror", "terrorism" and "terrorist" can be applied to a variety of methods, tactics, strategies and actors, just as a pistol can be classified as a "firearm" or "weapon" based on the specific context.

    I think the current confusion and misdirected national policy on how to deal with the subject of these terms can be attributed, in a significant measure, to Andrew Bacevitch's brilliant statement that Americans think, "War works". Failing an easily defined or readily available response to events such as 9/11, the default has been War. We simply wage "war" on anything that poses a mortal threat to us. The word "War" connotes an ultimate "Victory", and that's an emotionally pleasing concept, no matter how wasteful the application of war or warlike techniques may be.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Al-

    Good to have you back.

    You commented

    -- "Terror", "terrorism" and "terrorist" can be applied to a variety of methods, tactics, strategies and actors, just as a pistol can be classified as a "firearm" or "weapon" based on the specific context.--

    OK, I'll bite. Describe to me please how "terror or terrorism can be a strategy" . . . or is it rather a "method" (or "label" in the case of "terrorist") that can be applied to tactics or a strategy?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Will, since a strategic objective can be imposing one's will on another nation....

    Suppose one raised the threat of random acts of terror to make another nation spend trillions in response, curtail individual liberties and the like? In effect 9/11 changed our national priorities drastically, not as a matter of our will, but OBL's.

    Conquest or defeat is not the only legitimate strategic objective. Any imposition of one nation's (or actor's) will on another is.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Al,
    2 small points,comments.did aq/afgh/irq pose any mortal threat to the us??per your 1st reply.
    define moetal.please.
    now the 2nd reply.what other nation were we imposing our will upon?
    we destroyed iraq, so forget imposition of will. now for afgh-was that even a nation? how did we impose our will? if this is the definition then where does aq fall?
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don't think it was OBL's will either. That's assuming he was in fact a free agent in terms of forming his strategic objectives, a questionable assumption at this point.

    It was the will of the "Empire Party" which imposed itself on the USA post 9/11. They have imposed their policy of violence wielded as they see and decide fit. The Empire - and its continuous wars - is arguably not in the interests of the people of the United States, but those questions are never raised, or even allowed to be asked . . .

    How hard exactly are they to even consider, what whatever length of time . . . ?

    ReplyDelete
  49. jim - are we reading the same comments by Al?? What have I missed? I believe what Al said was completely the opposite of what you question in your 140231.

    seydlitz - I believe Al is on the right track. It was not the Bushistas that imposed their will. It was OBL (and later perhaps Ahmed Chalabi & co) who imposed their will on Bush and therefore on us collectively.

    ReplyDelete
  50. jim: small points,comments.did aq/afgh/irq pose any mortal threat to the us??per your 1st reply.
    define mortal.please.


    Sorry for the slight lack of clarity. The mortal threat was not to the "US" per se, but to some of its residents. As we have all agreed, there was absolutely no existential threat to the nation, but the threat to some citizens, as remote as it was and remains, got a mammoth and stupid response.

    Seydlitz-

    If 9/11 hadn't occurred, would we have thrown away trillions on GWB's adventures? Would the Patriot Act be a reality? Yes, we could have responded in a more intelligent way, but considering the actors in office at the time, the odds were highly in favor of a reaction that was off the scale. In short, OBL (and those of his ilk) got even more than he could have wished for. It may not be precisely "imposing", but it sure as hell is "eliciting" a response extremely costly to the US and in line with what OBL would have wished to see, and more.

    Consider the following:

    From the CDC: In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. So, if there were three 9/11 magnitude event in a year, it would approach the death toll from DUI. But most citizens perceive being killed by a drunk driver as very remote. Yet a major portion of the population saw 9/11 as a history altering event and a "clear and present danger" to themselves. The odds of an OBL sponsored death were 1/3rd of a DUI inflicted death, yet look at the different magnitude in response. Simply a matter of how mush "drama" is involved.

    ReplyDelete
  51. mike,
    We simply wage "war" on anything that poses a mortal threat to us.this is in Als cmt.
    how can the 9-11 stuff be considered a mortal threat?
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mike,Al,
    ... since a strategic objective can be imposing one's will on another nation....this is in Al's response.
    ok- i understand and agree with your analysis of AQ to US, but how can US policy be seen as being against another state?
    our afgh thing is against the people of afgh and not against a country. the invasion itself was against a 3rd world failed state so that precludes action aimed at a state.
    i'm just saying that putting the concept of nation hood in the equation is a faulty or restrictive concept.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  53. jim

    You have identified the heart of the problem. What is the US strategic objective? Upon whom are we trying to impose our will, and what is that will? As I said above, I truly think we went to "war" because Americans think "War Works" and is a simple "Spectator Sport", as so aptly described by Bacevich.

    Trying to extract or ascribe strategic rationality to our response to 9/11 is folly, as there is none to extract or ascribe. We simply did what we think "Works", and in a manner which kept the general populace in a warm and fuzzy "Spectator" mode. If you try to complicate it beyond that, you are only going to frustrate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  54. jim: how can the 9-11 stuff be considered a mortal threat?

    Because a fair amount of people got killed. It presents a mortal threat to some people, not the national existence. Since we were presented with the Boogieman that terror can strike anywhere, many in the populace perceived this as a mortal threat to themself personally. Thus, a significant portion of the population fearing that the next strike may include them, even if they lived far from any rational target area. I'm sure there were a fair number of people in Jacksboro, TX that were led to be afraid of AQ's "long reach". So pass the Patriot Act and now they are safe.

    As I said above, we are not talking about rational behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  55. To all bar patrons,

    Keeping in mind the crushing punitive measures already levied by Europe & the US, what would your suggested response by the US government be to Iran's announcement of cuts in oil shipments? What will the US government's actual response be? If Iran were to continue it's saber rattling, what course of action should the US take?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Al,
    we are on the same sheet.
    the problem is that we can no longer define the words-war or even works(objectives)
    according to woodward in BUSH AT WAR we were gaga to get teams on the ground in AFGH , and we had no fucking idea what they'd do or achieve when they got there.
    is this what you mean by strategy.
    we are fucking goof balls.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  57. jim: "we are fucking goof balls"


    Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that. To be frank, America is a marginally literate and deluded society that hasn't a clue about things concerning national policy.

    From today's Paul Krugman op-ed in the IHT:

    Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”

    During the McCain-Obama election tussle, Europeans roared with laughter over the Americans who sported signs demanding that the federal government not "take over Medicare". The Europeans get it and we don't.

    It's not just that we can no longer define the words - war or even works(objectives). It's simply that we have taken these two terms as givens requiring no definition. War is simply killing a bunch of bad people (or those bad enough to be in proximity to them) and blowing things up. As to a coherent objective for the killing and explosions - well, that's a bit too complex for the American mind. Better to stick with the more simplistic concept that "War works". Do "war stuff" and it will "work", because we are bigger and badder that the other guy.

    The planning of the 9/11 attack was done over several years, with OBL narrowing a much more difficult and grandiose plan to what finally took place. Several years to develop and fine tune a squad sized operation. In response, as you note, we simply went gaga to put troops on the ground in AFGH, without a clue as to a specific objective. A similar intellectually stunted decision making process was used to invade Iraq.

    But in the altered American reality of a history proof hindsight, "War worked" in Iraq, as we didn't "lose" in the classical sense, Saddam was overthrown and executed, a lot of the "other people" were killed, loads of stuff blown up, and the vast majority of Americans were at no personal risk in the process. They just enjoyed a "Spectator sport". Even in dollar cost terms, the placing of the burden on our grandkids by simply financing it through massive federal debt kept the general perception one of a "free ride". After all is said and done, the perception of AFGH will be similar, and as a result, nothing will be learned. Why?

    Because we are fucking goof balls!

    Meanwhile, some of us get totally stuck trying to make sense out of the senseless actions of goof balls. Can't be done.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hi all,

    In Paris on family business, which sounds impressive I guess, but in US terms is like Dallas/Chicago. Will read through and respond in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Al-

    You commented:

    --If 9/11 hadn't occurred, would we have thrown away trillions on GWB's adventures? Would the Patriot Act be a reality? Yes, we could have responded in a more intelligent way, but considering the actors in office at the time, the odds were highly in favor of a reaction that was off the scale. In short, OBL (and those of his ilk) got even more than he could have wished for. It may not be precisely "imposing", but it sure as hell is "eliciting" a response extremely costly to the US and in line with what OBL would have wished to see, and more.--

    -

    Prior to 9/11, a significant number of future Bush officials had signed a letter urging President Clinton to overthrow Saddam (this included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bolton and others). Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that ten days into the administration, "it was all about Iraq". Richard Clarke has stated that after 9/11 Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were "going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda with Iraq".

    The Iraq war was going to happen no matter what. OBL didn't impose anything, rather he opened a door through which this administration very much wished to pass through and would have in any case.

    You assume that there is no rationality here, but there is very clear instrumental rationality in terms of military means to political ends. The problem was that the military instrument was unsuitable to achieve the type of radical policy objectives Bush and his officials hoped to achieve. They had total faith in the power of violence and terror to achieve their gains, but little understanding of the area of the world they were dealing with and of political cohesion in general.

    They assumed that since they were able to gain power in the US, they would be able to impose whatever they wished on the world. They were "history's actors" and the rest of us were only the "reality based community". Through faith in their Weltanschauung and unlimited power they assumed that they were able to in effect make reality their bitch. This is very close to the "strategy of dominance" that I have mentioned before . . .

    This assumption that the normal rules do not apply to the US is the basis of our current economic policy as well btw.

    I would point out that these same assumptions are leading us into a "hot" war with Iran . . .

    ReplyDelete
  60. seydlitz-

    Although we are all holding different ribbons, we are really all dancing around the same Maypole.

    We are taking about policy makers who appear to think that even the laws of physics do not apply to their "reality".

    It seems we are simply trying to pinpoint the boundaries of the stupidity involved. Years ago, a colleague said:

    Scientists have been able to measure the limits of man's intelligence. They haven't, however, been able to plumb the depths of our stupidity.

    His point was that we have a fairly reasonable chance of figuring out what was going on in the minds of those making "rational, logical or reasonable" decisions. Stupidity, knowing no bounds, is impossible to measure, so don't be stupid enough to attempt that impossible mission.

    I would offer this FFT as to one aspect of the response to acts of terror. It is probably difficult of someone who fears death to deal with a foe who does not fear death, but indeed embraces it for an eternal reward. I'm not referring to soldiers on the battlefield, but the average civilian on the street. Contemporary American culture fears death at "worst" or denies its inevitability at "best". 9/11 and similar acts zoom right to the heart of that, and thus elicits extreme behavior. Whatever the motives of the policy makers, this root fear in the populace will result in blind support of dumb decision making. "War works" in our spectator sport version, because it delivers death and destruction (the root of fear) to the other guy.

    A look back in history would find that one of the major concerns of the early Christian Church was people seeking "martyrdom" to speed their reward of salvation. Not accepting it, but actively seeking it. Why put up with the misery of life, when a martyr's death sent you to straight to the best reward of all? Sound familiar? The only difference from the 9/11 crew was that the early Christians were not required to kill a bunch of heathens in the process. Contemporary American culture, to include a large portion of "Christian" denominations, cannot deal with the inevitable results of mortality. Consequently, the emergence of the "Prosperity Gospel" denominations, which offer a form of Heaven on Earth. "Salvation" results in a better job, a good house, etc. If a religion that once preached the rewards in the afterlife, now puts more emphasis on the rewards of the here and now, is there any wonder Americans fear death and can do really stupid things as a result?

    Ain't advocating one particular religion over another. Just comparing.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Al-

    Maybe the same Maypole, but very different strands.

    I'm talking about using a specific method within a strategic theory framework to achieve a political ends.

    You're talking more about our culture today, which I agree with btw.

    ReplyDelete
  62. seydlitz- "I'm talking about using a specific method within a strategic theory framework to achieve a political ends."

    Which brings to mind the classic steps in the "Problem Solving Process". Step One is DEFINE THE PROBLEM.

    Easier said than done in the arena we are looking into in this thread. We need to be cautious that we don't mis-define the problem in our quest for a strategic objective (political end). To restate your initial question away from "What is your definition of...." to "Is terror, terrorism or terrorists the problem, or a symptom and/or sequela of the problem?"

    How do you establish a strategic plan to address a symptom? The problems will remain and simply manifest itself in different symptoms over time. But then, addressing the issues of Islamic extremists is a hell of a lot more complex than just killing them, so we kill them while the root problem produces more extremists.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Terror/terrorism from a strategic theory perspective is a method. It could be seen as an indication or symptom of a social/political problem in that those one attempts to dominate resist/reject that vision of their future. But this avoids the reality that most terror has been used by states.

    If one sees continual dominance on a global scale as a legitimate and rational policy for the US to follow, then one will have to live with the reaction to that policy . . .

    ReplyDelete
  64. If one sees continual dominance on a global scale as a legitimate and rational policy for the US to follow, then one will have to live with the reaction to that policy

    You will get no argument from me on this.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Me:

    I have more to say on the "corruption of language", but gotta go.

    The problem with nailing down the meanings of words in English resides in our Thesaurus. And in the thousands and more likely millions of American high school English composition teachers urging their classes to explore new uses of vocabulary to enliven and embolden their writing.

    Terrorism is what its victim says it is. Of course, for a narrower purpose, the meaning of terrorism must be hammered out so communication can be improved.

    Terrorism from lawyers!

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/02/21/joseph-bast-is-kind-of-a-big-pussy/

    seydlitz, I hope you are having the most complete opposite of a terroristic threat from Gay Paree.

    Pictures, maybe?

    :)

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  66. Aviator #1:

    The mortal threat was not to the "US" per se, but to some of its residents. As we have all agreed, there was absolutely no existential threat to the nation, but the threat to some citizens, as remote as it was and remains, got a mammoth and stupid response.

    A Freudian response might be that the twin towers represented the twin phallic symbols of American financial and world power.

    And I believe there may be substantial truth to that. The American dollar so far is the lingua franca of global finance, and the threat of some nations to use other currency than the US Greenback in the Oil Trade is causing some consternation.

    A kick to the balls, so to speak.

    Aviator #2:

    Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that. To be frank, America is a marginally literate and deluded society that hasn't a clue about things concerning national policy.

    Jaw-droppingly clueless, but I do understand them, farmers do tend to be single-minded about things:

    http://tinyurl.com/7k3relw

    When Iraq sought bids on rice a few months ago, word on the street was the U.S. would have a piece of the action, said Mike Wagner, who grew up on a rice farm in Sumner, Miss. When that didn't happen, Wagner and other rice farmers say they were shocked.

    "We invested so much in that country, and we feel like it's something of a slap in the face," said Wagner, who's considering planting more soybeans or a new crop on his 4,000-acre Mississippi Delta farm.

    John Alter, 64, also is considering alternatives. Usually, about one-third of his 1,500-acre farm in DeWitt, Ark., is devoted to rice. This year, it would be risky to dedicate too much land to the crop, he said. The loss of imports is disappointing, Alter said, noting the price difference between U.S. rice and Uruguayan grain was small.

    "We spent billions and billions, if not trillions over there, and lots of people died," Alter said. "There should be some reciprocation ... Last time I checked, there wasn't any Uruguayan soldiers that lost their lives in Iraq."



    bb

    ReplyDelete
  67. The best terror weapon? Any weapon that introduces uncertainty and evokes enough fear to significantly disrupt societal equilibrium. Admittedly, this is offered off the top of my head.

    ReplyDelete