If you don't buy this, how about your definitions of "terriorists" vs "insurgents" and "guerillas"

The point is that insurgents and guerillas, like government forces, use a mixture of conventional military goals and terror. So most military forces are "terrorists" in some of their actions, but to apply the singular label to one group is too simplistic.

It seems to me that the logical extension of what you are saying is that there is no such thing as a "terrorist" as such, or rather, that no militarily active group either has a monopoly on terrorism or has completely avoided terrorist activities. In fact, war is terrible, and terror is essentially part of war.

I think that it's very hard to come up with a good definition of terrorism that allows a person to remain consistent over different conflicts. Given that, it's probably a good idea to consciously adopt a bias either for an expansive use of the term (under which the Shock and Awe campaign and the attack on Wolfowitz' hotel are both terrorist acts) or a more reluctant use of the term (under which neither would be terrorist acts). It's not terribly rigorous, but it works in communication, once you have made clear what that bias is.

On the other hand, the truly sloppy thinking, which is encouraged by the White House and others, is that Our Guys don't engage in terror, and that Their Guys always do. I'm sympathetic to Mr. Marshall's outrage at Paul Bremer's language, in that regard.

I think the focus on 'tactics' is exactly wrong! Terrorism is defined by the target, not the tactics. What's more difficult to do in todays world is to differentiate who are the peasants and who are the knights. The attacks on Wolfowitz are arguably legitimate military attacks (because he played a large role in the military attack on Iraq). The fact that he is a civilian, does not make him one of the peasants of days gone by. What makes Hiroshima the largest instance of terrorism is the fact that a city of innocents (or near innocents) were killed as a message, not the tactic (bombing) that was used. Terrorism is attacking those not directly involved in a military campaign, as a means of stopping the military campaign. It is a tactic, but is is ALWAYS achieved by attacking a particular type of target.

But in a democracy, where the Wolfowitzs of the world work for the voters, the average voter is the ultimate director of military operations.

Imagine two people-- one a national guardsmen who opposes the war in Iraq but is sent overseas anyways versus a strongly partisan warhawk voter back in the US. Does the soldier who opposes the war deserve to die more than the warhawk voter who sent him there?

In societies where soldiers are drafted, the distinction seems even more odd. Take Israel-- settlers in the West Bank exist in defiance of international law and UN resolutions and usually ardently support the oppression of Palestinian rights. Does an Israeli soldier who opposes the Occupation deserve to die more than a pro-war settler? (Notably, Fatah has drawn a distinction between attacks on settlers, which they deem legitimate, versus attacks on Israeli civilians, which they officially condemn.)

I just don't think a clean distinction between civilian and military deaths works. Add in the arguments that "collateral" civilian deaths are okay as long as there was also a military target, and all the distinctions just seem to end up justifying whatever tactics used by those making the distinction.

Discussing tactics and the morality of the goals involved seems far more relevant than the kind of ethnical proceduralism in merely discussing "civilian" versus "military" targets.

It's interesting that you see defining a word as looking for a definition that will be useful. I took a different approach. I defined it based more on what it is people mean when they use the word.

Terrorism is a word we apply to place a negative value judgment on certain kinds of non-governmental political actors that use violence against non-military targets. When we want to apply a positive value judgment on violent non-governmental political actors, we call them freedom fighters. The terrorist label is our way of saying the violence is unjustified.

Not the way to go.

• Your own usage is consistent; but few in the US will ever apply the name of terrorism to the Hiroshima or Baghdad bombings. On the other hand, many may be led to apply it to attacks on US armed forces (as to the 1983 bombing of the Marines barracks in Beirut).
• Current usage is inconsistent; but one relatively consistent feature is that it's mostly restricted to attacks on non-combatants. That's worth hanging on to.
• Historically, the term has never been taken to cover all fear-based tactics. It goes back to seemingly pointless assassinations by Narodniks and anarchists in the late C19; these were understood as attempts to spread terror and dismay in the general population. Specifically it didn't apply to intimidation tactics, attempts to frighten specific persons into doing or not doing specific things. Now of course it's taken more broadly; but the history of the term doesn't support broadening it even further to all fear-based tactics.
• Neglected as it may be, discrimination between combatants and non-combatants is fundamental to any law of war. Giving it up is a counsel of despair.

I don't see it as a "counsel of despair"; I see it as a recognition of the responsibility of citizens in democracies especially for acts of violence done in their name.

If I vote to have you killed by bombs, and you seek to kill me, the fact that I am a "non-combatant" seems kind of irrelevant.

My basic point is that "innocence" is not a binary attribute but a complex issue where the lives of some military people deserve far more respect-- say draftees by a dictator -- while highly politicized warhawk civilians would in many cases be far more just targets of attack than pacificist draftees.

What is going on in Iraq is no different than what went on in Europe between 1939 and 1945 - a foreign military invaded one's nation and attempted to install a government friendly to said power, regardless of what the local people wanted. Some chose to rise up in opposition and fight the invaders.

This was the very theme of the movie Red Dawn which posed a situation where the Russians invaded the US, neutralized the government, and attempted to install one friendly to the interests of the USSR. Patriotic Americans rose up in opposition to this plan.

How is the theme of the movie, and the historical fact of the Resistance in WWII, any different from what is going on in Iraq today? Nothing.

Hitler claimed he was invading to free the people from oppression by the Socialists. Tojo claimed he was freeing fellow Asiatics from the oppression of the colonialists. Stalin claimed he was freeing the people from the oppression of the fascists. LBJ claimed he was freeing the Vietnamese from the opporession of World Communism. Bush should be claiming that he's freeing petroleum from the domination of the Ba'athist Party instead of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's missing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The common thread of all of these examples? A portion of the population in each case rose up to fight the invaders.

The only thing that can work anywhere at any time under any political system is self-determination, something the PNAC_BFEE Cabal is striving to deny to the Iraqi people like they try to deny it to the American people. No matter how long it takes, self-determination will rise up to defeat any invading oppressor. It may take hundreds of years as in the case of the Roman Empire, but it will happen. History will not be denied.

Yes, civilians may be more guilty than military personnel. But the reason for protecting civilians isn't that they're innocent, it's to limit the horrors of war. And the reason for killing the enemy military isn't that they're guilty, it's that they're the enemy.

If I vote to have you killed by bombs, and you seek to kill me, the fact that I am a "non-combatant" seems kind of irrelevant.

And if it's a just war? Or if I'm in an invading army? Are you and all your compatriots still fair game? Is any democracy that goes to war a fit subject for genocide?

Discussing tactics and the morality of the goals involved seems far more relevant than the kind of ethnical proceduralism in merely discussing "civilian" versus "military" targets.

Since every state that goes to war, and every political group that resorts to violence, claims to be in the right, this makes every question of morality in conflict just as unresolvable as the underlying conflict.

The point about rules like the Geneva Conventions, is that they're objective enough that even parties in conflict can agree to abide them -- if they care to.

I'd like to put in a pitch for Michael Walzer's book JUST AND UNJUST WARS in this discussion. He makes a very strong case for talking precisely about targets -- both in terms of his definition of "terrorism" and in terms of Just War theory, which he argues -- successfully, to my mind -- is not at all obsolete in the modern era.

(Incidentally, I disagree with many of Walzer's positions on contemporary events, especially what he wrote about the Iraq war. This does not seem to me to invalidate his arguments at all; in fact, I would argue against him precisely in terms of his own book, which I think he has not stayed faithful to.)

I can't possibly do justice to the complexities of his argument here, but a (hasty and necessarily inaccurate) summation might be this: justice in war is an extension of the right to self-defense. Just wars are wars fought in self-defense; justly fought wars are wars fought by means appropriate to self-defense.

The point about Nathan Newman's example of the young national guardsman is that his *views* are irrelevant. He is a target because he is part of an occupying army, with the potential to do harm to the people he occupies. The point about just war theory is that the right to self defense becomes slightly broader: you don't need to prove that *this particular solider* was at *this particular moment* threatening you; the threat, and therefore the response, is general.

Note, incidentally, that Walzer *agrees* that Hiroshima is an act of terrorism, which has nothing to do with tactics but simply targets: it's the bombing of civilians without any possible military justification. The same applies to the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden and so on. And could very easily apply to "shock and awe", if it was targeted at civilians (and not simply, say, at military fortifications).

Further, this does not necessarily make matters a simple, black-and-white affair: war workers in factories, military personnel who do nothing aggressive (e.g. army doctors) are middle cases which are complex. Other complex cases are cases where the target is genuinely military, but is likely or certain to result in what today we call collateral damage: this, too, is a complex issue, to be argued out on a case-by-case basis. Let me again recommend Walzer's book, which goes into many cases in great detail.

One further point is that "innocence" is, I think, a terrible term to introduce in this discussion. Judging who is innocent is far too fraught; it is far too easy to get caught up in matters of which side is right -- which, as one commentator noted above, is precisely what Just War theory ought to and, at its best, does get away from: the standards are neutral, applied equally to all. (Even to the point that the issues of whether the war is as a larger matter just (jus ad bello) is a seperable matter from whether the war is being justly fought (jus in bello); a just war can be unjustly fought, and vice-versa.)

I would agree with the suggestion that Nathan Newman's definitions are extremely misguided: they will, in practical terms, lead us to say that everything we do is right and everything they do is wrong. But this wouldn't be a definitive argument against them, save that I think they are also *morally* wrong as well.

Y'all are falling into the same trap as the current administration, that all of the attacks are carried out by a single group with common purposes.

There are people attacking to remove the US, others are attacking to improve their political/religious position, others are taking revenge, some are merely criminal, and some are simply intent on causing anarchy.

You have terrorists, guerrillas, unemployed soldiers, criminals, religious zealots, and anarchists.

Failing to recognize that "one-size" does not "fit-all" in Iraq is a major error that prevents any effective actions to stabilize the country.

> Does the soldier who opposes the war deserve to
> die more than the warhawk voter who sent him there?

A soldier who knows what he is doing is wrong but does it anyway? Quite possibly. The correct course of action for such a soldier would be to refuse to participate in the war, whatever the personal consequences.

I think it is valid to define terrorism as attacks on civilian targets, if the definition of civilian is appropriate. Wolfowitz might not technically be a member of the military, but he's no cilivian. Calling the occupying army "police" wouldn't make them civilians either. And even if they're not armed, I wouldn't call Israeli settlers civilian.

The issue of citizens in a democracy is irrelevant, since there aren't any genuine democracies in the world at the moment, as far as I'm aware. But since there's no way to tell who voted for war and who voted against, I think it's reasonable to treat everyone not directly involved in the war effort as civilian.

Using "terrorism" to describe tactics rather than targets is inappropriate, because that's not how it will be understood by the general public. Terrorism is very strongly perceived as a bad thing, while morale-breaking tactics can often be a good thing, by minimising actual casualties.

If my quick googling is correct, Hezbollah was responsible for the Marine barracks suicide bombing in 1983 - should we be describing them as insurgents?

Al Qaeda is apparently implicated in the Khobar Towers barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the bombing of the USS Cole - are they insurgents, too? And is that really how we expect a senior US official to describe Al Qaeda?

And from a slightly different angle - Josh Marshal was criticizing Paul Bremer's choice of words. Surely, Bremer is expected to engage in a bit of salesmanship for "his side" - he is not anchoring the news in London.

Finally, I would dare any major US media to adopt the "Marshall Plan" - my suspicion is that it would do more harm to the media outlet itself than to Bush. Frustrating for Mr. Mashall, no doubt...

On the point of killing the warhark civilian instead of the soldier who opposes the war, this fall in with terrorism. You are being killed for your belief alone, you have no direct action in the war unlike the soldier. Terrorist or guerilla does not apply only to the group but the quality of the action and its victims.
1) An attack on a US convoy by armed men is and act of guerillaism
2) The attack on the car full of women who were coming back from working with the administration last week is terrorism.
3) The various assassinations of political figures in the new Iraq are also terrorism. They may have been directly involved in whatever beef their killers may have, however their deaths were planned with no thought given to any rules of engagement or surrender. Also the killing of public figures is usually seen as worse, or at any rate more significant, than any 'innocent' in the street.
4) As for the attacks on Allied servicemen where civilian bystanders were also victims all armies use the excuse of 'double effect', forseen but unintended deaths, so it would be hypocritical for them not to let it apply to their ememies.