"Terrorists"

US forces fight Iranian-backed militias in southern Iraq. Or, as the Pentagon put it:

"During the close air support, at least 20 terrorists were killed and six suspected terrorists were assessed to be wounded by the strafing," the military said. "A vehicle being used by the terrorists as a fighting position was also destroyed by the close air support."

This is a somewhat delicate issue to raise, but the war in Iraq seems to have spawned a wholly abusive use of the term "terrorist." The battle came about because "Coalition aircraft were called in to strafe fighters who attacked Coalition troops in Amarah and Majjar al-Kabir, two Shiite cities in the Mayson province bordering Iran, the military said." Surely, though, people who use force against soldiers are paradigmatic examples of people who aren't terrorists -- with terrorism being defined by the use of force against civilians.

Comments

the war in Iraq seems to have spawned a wholly abusive use of the term "terrorist."

please tell me you really don't think they use that word because they can't think of a better one, or that they don't know what "terrorist" actually means.

the abuse of the word is sheer propaganda.

Posted by cleek | June 18, 2007 10:01 AM

This is a somewhat delicate issue to raise, but the war in Iraq seems to have spawned a wholly abusive use of the term "terrorist."

Hey, no shit?

"Partisans" is the most appropriate term for the forces fighting occupation troops.

Posted by sglover | June 18, 2007 10:07 AM

Somewhere in Elysium, Tacitus says, "Hey, I coulda told you that."

Posted by Bill | June 18, 2007 10:07 AM

I do love this:

dead people - definitely terrorists
wounded people - suspected terrorists

If we'd just killed them they would be terrorists!

Posted by Ugh | June 18, 2007 10:08 AM

Confusion on this point, either deliberate or not, long predates the Iraq war. During the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in the early '80s, there were bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April '83 and on the Marines' barracks in October '83. By any useful definition of terrorism, the first of those was a terrorist attack, while the second one wasn't. But mis-statements and obfuscation on that point have happened every day since then.

Posted by Haggai | June 18, 2007 10:09 AM

No shit. I remember wingnut complaints from the 03-04 era about calling Iraqis fighting our soldiers and the Iraq Government, "insurgents." Because they were "terrorists" and everyone had to affirm that they believed so. Twice.

However, it's always been a somewhat meaningless term. The old saw became an old saw for a reason, after all.

Posted by witless chum | June 18, 2007 10:10 AM

1) If you look at the word games that the Bush Administration has played with the term, you would conclude that America's Founding Fathers were terrorists.

2)Edward Peck is a former US Ambassador and was Deputy Director of the White House Terrorism Task Force in the Reagan Administration.

Mr Peck explained why the Bush administration has difficulty defining terrorism: See
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1440244
------------
"In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us -- this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group -- they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.

After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”

Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 10:16 AM

Ugh's point seconded. Maybe this is the new strategy Bush keeps talking about. Definite terrorist - shoot to kill. Maybe a terrorist - wing 'em.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | June 18, 2007 10:31 AM

The U.S. is hardly the first country to call everybody who fights back a terrorist.

Posted by dj moonbat | June 18, 2007 10:33 AM

Terrorism is not "the use of force against civilians."

The distinguishing characteristic of terrorism is that its goal is to inspire terror. The primary impact of terrorism is its emotional impact. The terrorist is not trying to defeat the enemy militarily, or to disrupt its industrial base or its communications or transportation systems. Instead, he seeks to strike fear into his enemies and to encourage supporters to resist or at least to cease cooperation with the enemy. His goal is to alter the behavior of his allies and adversaries by manipulating their emotions.

Terrorism is theater. The World Trade Center attack was the most effective work of conceptual art in the history of the world. The destruction of a few city blocks and the deaths of a few thousand office workers had no impact on American military or industrial capability, yet it has altered the course of history forever, entirely due to its emotional effect. Next to Osama bin Laden, Christo is hardly a footnote.

This does not really address your post- but as to that - OF COURSE fighters on the ground against US troops are not "terrorists." But for years the government has used the word "terrorist" to mean "people who are against us." How could people who took up weapons against American forces (or forces allied with Americans) in Afghanistan - people who were fighting an invading army - possibly be terrorists? Yet those are the sorts of people now at Guantanamo and Bagram. "Terrorists" is used as an epithet, not a descriptive term. It resembles the Russians' use of the word "bandits," which is how they described the forces that pushed them out of Afghanistan and how they describe the Chechen rebels today.

Posted by Bloix | June 18, 2007 10:43 AM

I agree with the main point, but I disagree that its a "somewhat delicate issue". What's delicate about it? We should try to use clear and accurate language, period.

Posted by Jim W | June 18, 2007 10:43 AM

I understand the Bush administration's desire to degrade the term to mean "individuals that oppose the Bush administration." I can understand the official embarrasment over the fact that people considered heros by many U.S. citizenz behaved as terrorists. But I've never understood the MSM's acceptance of the argument that it is difficult to define a terrorist.

One could have great fun asking the GOP candidates to define the term terrorism. One would think that it would be rather embarrasing to be fighting a global war against something that you couldn't recognize.

Posted by rk | June 18, 2007 10:51 AM

In the "War on Terrorism" those militias are seen to be aiding the terrorists, by the president's definition therefore they are also terrorists.

Glad to see they got a high kill count though, capturing prisoners only causes problems.

Posted by MrSparkle | June 18, 2007 10:54 AM

If everything is part of a "War on Terror," then by definition everyone you're fighting must be a terrorist. John Edwards is absolutely right to attack the "War on Terror" framing as the root -- well, a root -- of our misguided policies.

Posted by Glenn | June 18, 2007 11:03 AM

rk,
That would be great fun, until they asked the Democrats the same question. My guess is that our side would lose that exchange, as sad as that sounds. Perhaps after all of the Democratic candidates read Matthew's book, they will become emboldened and look to national security as an area where Democrats should have the upper hand, but that day has not yet come.

As to the post, yes, use of the term is ridiculous.

Posted by theCoach | June 18, 2007 11:04 AM

Well, say what you will, but this is certainly easier to swallow than something like "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" when Eurasia was an ally just yesterday.

Posted by abb1 | June 18, 2007 11:07 AM

My first reaction was to marvel that MY is just now noticing this.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 18, 2007 11:18 AM

A better, if less felicitous, description I've seen used by U.S. military spokesmen is "anti-Iraqi forces" to refer to militants who predominantly attack Iraqi troops and civilians. "Partisan" or "insurgent" isn't the best description of those who attack Iraqi markets, funeral processions, etc.

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 11:20 AM

To be fair, I don't think the article made it clear whether the individuals involved in the incident you're talking about are targeting/have targeted the U.S. Army exclusively. The linked article later refers to car bombs, for example; if the incidents were related, and if the car bombs were targeted at civilians (aren't most?), then the so-called terrorists probably were actual terrorists.

This doesn't take away from your actual point. Terrorism is an overused Orwellian buzzword that has long been used to mean "anyone we don't like." Psychological warfare is an important part of it, and targeting civilians is too. (Psychological warfare aimed at enemy soldiers — using some especially horrific weapon, say, or even something simple like leaflets — would not rightly be called terrorism, I don't think.) But the thing is, I'm pretty sure groups that target only civilians are rare. So if "terrorist" is a career description, plenty of terrorists will also attack the military at times.

I guess the point of all this (I have to have a point? Really?) is that in addition to the other problems with talking about "terrorism," there's the fact that using the "ist" form of the word, even with a reasonable definition, can be far more sweeping than it should be.

Posted by Cyrus | June 18, 2007 1:38 PM

Thanks for pointing out that terrorist does mean "someone who attacks the good guys."

Posted by Xanthippas | June 18, 2007 1:57 PM

"Partisans" is the most appropriate term for the forces fighting occupation troops.

Also, "resistance":

an underground organization composed of groups of private individuals working as an opposition force in a conquered country to overthrow the occupying power, usually by acts of sabotage, guerrilla warfare, etc

"Insurgency" works if you accept the legitimacy of the Iraqi government:

insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent

Posted by croatoan | June 18, 2007 4:38 PM

"terrorism (n.) The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

"Terrorism: the systematic use of terror, esp as a means of coercion."

Note: nothing in either definition limits it to violence towards civilians.

It no longer amazes me when MY posts factually incorrect and lazy things (perhaps he has an hourly quota, and doesn't have time to write anything good). Rather, I'm now amazed that so many pavlovian dogs here take what he says at face value-do you have no ability to question, or have you simply lost the desire to?

Sk

Posted by Sk | June 18, 2007 4:53 PM

...and if the car bombs were targeted at civilians (aren't most?)

Good question. I assume so, but military convoys/patrols have faced a large number of V-BEDS (vehicle born explosive devices). I'd like to see the tally before jumping to conclusions.

Posted by Eric Martin | June 18, 2007 5:03 PM

The use of "anti-Iraqi forces" wasn't limited to any particular group or type of attack; it was pretty widely used against any insurgents during the period after the installation of the interim gov't, leading to headlines "Coalition Forces [i.e. foreigners] Clash with Anti-Iraqi Fighters [i.e. Iraqis]."

Posted by MikeN | June 19, 2007 1:28 AM

Sk, MY is using the term terrorism in the way the majority of respected American social/political scientists use that term, in part to differentiate it from insurgents, revolutionaries (including our Founding Fathers), etc. Where exactly did you get that definition?

Posted by Reality Man | June 19, 2007 3:12 AM