Lets start with the dictionary definition: "terrorism - noun (1795) The systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion......terrorist - noun or adjective"
National Geographic had an article about the history of terrorism some time ago, but I no longer have that issue, so I'll have to rely on my memory. According to them, the Boston Tea Party was technically a terrorist act. Although there were no deaths or injuries from it, there was destruction of property, which they classify as a terrorist act. I don't know if I agree with that or not, but according to my dictionary, the word was not in use until 1795, so it couldn't have been called "terrorism" at the time it occurred. They also said that the old time Anarchists were terrorists, but that they differed from the modern terrorists in that they exclusively targeted political or military leaders.
I don't think that a terrorist has to be fighting for a lost cause to be called a terrorist, but I can see how you might get that impression. A terrorist is trying to have a larger impact than he could get by conventional military tactics with the resources currently available to him so, while it may not be a lost cause, it's a cause that he couldn't win by conventional means right now. There was something like that in my military training, but they didn't call it "terrorism", they called it "harassment". That's when you try to soften an enemy up with random limited attacks, like with snipers. The intent is to make the enemy nervous because he doesn't know when the next attack is coming. Hopefully, this will demoralize him and weaken his resolve so that he won't be so enthusiastic about resisting the regular attack that you are planning for later. Sounds a lot like terrorism to me but, for some reason, they didn't call it that.
I think that governments do indeed employ terrorism, they just don't like to call it that when they do it. The nuclear attack on Japan at the end of World War II was certainly terrorism because, although there were some military and industrial facilities in the target areas, the main intent was to break the Japanese will to fight and end the war sooner than they would have with a conventional invasion like D-Day. I think that most people on both sides knew by then that the U.S. was going to win eventually, and the Japanese had already offered to negotiate a surrender, but our guys wanted unconditional surrender, and they got it.
An argument could be made that any kind of warfare is terrorism, and maybe it is nowadays. Traditionally, wars used to be fought over territory, and the main idea was to put your guys on the ground instead of the other guys. Either you kicked them off and replaced them with your guys, which is called "offence", or your guys were already there and you tried to prevent the enemy from replacing them with his own guys, which is called "defense". At some point in time, the U.S. changed the name of their War Department to the Department of Defense. I don't remember when that was, but our guys haven't fought a strictly defensive war since 1812-14, unless you count the Civil War. Now we have the Department of Homeland Security, which is basically doing what the Department of Defense would be doing if they weren't so busy conducting offensive operations on foreign soil. Be that as it may, the U.S. already has more territory than it knows what to do with, so they don't fight over territory like they used to. If they did, Japan and Germany would probably be our 51st and 52nd states by now.
The Israel/Palestinian conflict was originally about territory, and maybe it still is to the two original belligerents, but I think it's gone way beyond that by now as far as he U.S. and the Islamic terrorists are concerned. I think that, if Israel were to sink into the sea tomorrow, those guys would still be after us. I doubt that their goal is to conquer and annex the United States, that would be like the minnow swallowing the whale. At this point, I don't know what the terrorists want from us but, whatever it is, we shouldn't give it to them, no good can come of that. Anybody who has ever trained dogs or kids can tell you that, if you reward bad behavior, you're just going to get more of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment