Just what IS terrorism?

You may find this discussion both interesting and relevant. Although never completed, many of the issues that have been raised in this thread were covered - in some depth . Enjoy.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-14-2004 09:02 AM

Bir Yassin

Hi jar.Although I don't necessarily make Holmes' distinction concerning symmetric and assymetric war (probably just semantic disagreement), I do support his emphasis on motive or intent over actor.In the other thread, contracycle questioned DarkStar's use of a motive-based definition of terrorism. The example contracycle used was the destruction of infrastructure that caused civilian casualties as terrorist. IMO, it is not a terrorist act per se. It may be morally indefensible if it causes civilian casualties, but it is not in and of itself a terrorist act. OTOH, the deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants as an objective IS terrorism. Hence, to take a few historical examples, the indescriminate firebombing of civilian population centers during WWII such as Tokyo and Dresden, or the bombing of Coventry, or the slaughter at Nanking, were demonstrably "terrorist", as they had as their sole justification and target the civilian populace of the respective victims. The murder of over 700 unarmed civilians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps by Tony Chamoun's phalangists with the apparent acquiesence of the Israeli occupying forces in Beirut in '82 - after the evacuation of most armed Palestinian guerrillas - was a terrorist act, pure and simple. The WWII examples are important because they were conducted by duly constituted nation states and national armies - so terrorism is not solely limited to actions by the fringes.This is not to say there is no ambiguity involved here. The bombing of the King David Hotel for example, however many civilians may have been caught in the cross fire, is probably defensible as a legitimate military action since the hotel was used extensively by the British military government. The elimination of the Tal el-Zatar suburb by the Lebanese Forces militia during the Lebanese civil war is borderline, but is probably terrorism as it was directed solely at the civilian inhabitants, despite the fact that comparatively few civilians were actually killed (it's an example of ethnic cleansing).My position is the tactics employed, "credible threat" considerations, the actors, and the mere fact of noncombatant casualties - however deplorable - do NOT terrorism make.

Umm, possibly because I hadn't addressed the subject of Hiroshima? If you read the thread linked to upstream, you would have seen in that much more detailed discussion that I DO consider the nuclear attack on at least Nagasaki to be "terrorism" as conducted by a nation state - as well as the Dresden, Tokyo, Coventry, etc. Toller makes a fairly decent case in "Rising Sun" that Hiroshima, at least, may have had a more military basis than civilian, but I don't intend to argue one way or the other. Did you read what I wrote? Where do you get anything about "saving lives"? My criteria is that terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian noncombatants. In both of the two incidents you cite here, there can be no question using my criteria that they constituted terrorist acts.As far as spin, I think it is much more dangerous to define terrorism with reference to actor or methodology. For one thing, it absolves nations of the responsibility for confronting their own use of terrorism as a "legitimate" tool of war. In the second, it simply permits the stigmatization of a particular group that a national government doesn't like - whether internal or external. A guerrilla organization fighting an insurgency where their attacks are against government or military targets would thus be considered "terrorist" - as is happening in Iraq today, for example. I can name a dozen or more guerrilla/insurgency operations down through history that could easily be stigmatized as "terrorist", from Armenius to the American Revolution to the Malay Insurgency, but which were, in the main, "legitimate" and confined their operations to military or government targets. In the case of Armenius, for example, his operations were directed solely against the Roman legions, whereas the Romans used terrorism in reprisal. This is why intent, or target (if you don't like the word intent), is the key criteria.

Although there were allegations in the Grozny case that flattening the city was a deliberate attack on the civilian population (and hence terrorist), the situation with Fallujah is not analogous. In the latter there was no effort to destroy or kill noncombatants. Civilian casualties are an inevitable and deplorable result of combat in a built-up area. Fallujah is more akin to the battle for Hue. Contrast these two actions, however, with Rifat Assad's indescriminant destruction of Hama - in this case the entire operation was designed to kill everyone including men, women and children. Hama was conclusively terrorist. Stop focusing on the mere fact of civilian casualties - as an unintended result, casualties are unfortunate and should be avoided as much as possible (as was the case with Fallujah from what I can make out), but that does not equate to terrorism. The entire point of using intent as a basis for judgement is designed to remove the ambiguity and force "legitimate" states to confront their own uses of terror by making a clear distinction. If you have a gun, you're a combatant. Doesn't matter in the least why you have it. Involuntary conscripts may or may not have the opportunity to throw down their weapons and surrender. If they do, the worst that can happen is they're interned until their true status is determined. If they don't, doesn't that speak more to the detriment of those who forced them into that situation than it does to those who merely take the fact that they are armed at face value? No one can realistically be expected to stop in the middle of a battle and ask whether the guy with the rifle really wants to be there. However, the fundamental problem with that definition remains: there is no way to distinguish between "legitimate" guerrilla groups or insurgents and terrorists. By this definition, the American revolutionaries were terrorists. It also completely absolves nation states from acknowledging and hopefully refraining from use of force against enemy (however that is defined) civilians as a legitimate tool of war. It legitimizes (or at least fails to condemn) such government-sponsored actions as the Salvadoran death squads, the use of carpet bombing on civilian areas by the 8th Air Force, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which you yourself referenced, the burning of dozens of German villages by the Romans following the Teutoburgwald massacre, etc etc etc.The basic idea is to not only develop an operational definition of terrorist, but also to delegitimize actions against civilians as a tool of organized war. Your definition doesn't do so. Mine at least comes closer.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-24-2004 10:07 AM

Since the quote this refers to was from my post, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your thought process. To wit, how did you derive this conclusion from anything I've written in this (or the other) thread? I've been extremely careful to use numerous examples of duly constituted nationstates - mostly western - using terrorism as part of their warfighting. It is the entire objective of my definition to force these states to acknowledge this, and hopefully renounce it for the future. Of course, I'm something of an idealist...

How does this falsify the argument? Civilians (with the possible exception of Grozny), were NOT attacked. They were, unfortunately, caught in the crossfire. Under your definition as expanded, ANY act of warfare in any conflict where civilian casualties occur is terrorist. This makes the terrorist/nonterrorist dichotomy utterly meaningless. If orders were issued to Marine snipers to deliberately target any person seen in their sector, regardless of whether or not that person was armed or engaged in combat operations, and regardless of whether they were men, women or children (a "kill 'em all" order) then you might be able to make a case that the action was terrorist in intent. However, in neither the case of Hue NOR the case of Fallujah has that been either proven or even alleged. That is a ridiculous assertion. You have now thrown completely out the window the internationally agreed-upon definition of jus in bello, specifically that dealing with proportional response. It is possible to make a post facto determination that excessive force was used in a particular case, or that the principle of proportional response was ignored, but this is entirely different from terrorism. This entire line of argument is utterly irrelevant to an attempt to define what constitutes terrorism. You are merely arguing that no combat should take place where civilians can get hurt. Guess what? Whether dealing with asymetrical war/low intensity conflict in the developing world or guerre a l'outrance (total war al la Clauswitz) between superpowers, civilians are going to get killed. Unless you can come up with a formula where no war will ever be fought, or where the belligerants agree to fight only on some nice empty desert somewhere, civilian casualties are an inevitable consequence of armed conflict. Most of the laws of civilized warfare are designed to limit or mitigate civilian casualties and damage to civilian areas. However, even so, these treaties recognize that civilians may be caught in the crossfire when combat operations needs must be conducted in predominantly civilian areas. The laws make it incumbent on the combatants to take due regard for protection of civilians, that's all.Now it's your turn. Please explain, in sufficient detail, preferably using specific examples from history, how adopting your preferred definition of terrorism avoids civilian casualties OR provides the necessary discrimination to differentiate "legitimate" from "illegitimate" tools of war. Also, how your definition forces nations to confront their own illegitimate use of this tactic. No, it doesn't. In fact, it will have the opposite effect: stigmatizing the use of violence deliberately directed against civilians as terrorism. Your definition, OTOH, really DOES absolve nationstates from acknowledging their own illegitimate use of this tactic. After all, they're not attacking civilians for political purposes.As far as spin goes - I agree. The most difficult aspect of adopting my definition is getting nations to recognize the targetting of noncombatants as terrorism. However, I submit that if this can be done, we will go a long way toward delegitimizing this odious tactic as a tool of warfare. Your definition simply avoids the issue completely. No, it isn't. At least not in the context in which I used it. Conscription is a standard aspect of many national armies. Forced conscription, where someone is literally made to take up arms at gun point, is what I was referring to. Many of the Iraqi soldiers during Gulf War I were involuntary conscripts swept up by what were basically press gangs, and kept in place by threat of death - and they surrendered in droves to Coalition troops as soon as possible. An admirable desire. Unfortunately, it is also utterly irrelevant to the attempt at operationalizing a useable definition of terrorism. Right. However, besides being off topic by having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, this quite laudable desire ignores completely the reality of conflict. If the "enemy" is operating out of civilian areas, how is one to go about confronting them without taking the fight into those areas? Simply abandoning the field to the opposing belligerents doesn't seem a very effective tactic. Perhaps you would care to open a new thread to discuss what constitutes acceptable military operations? Then please make your argument more explicit. Why do you lump guerrillas with terrorists? How do you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate acts of violence? Because, demonstrably, and with the exception of some of the fratricidal operations conducted by both sides in the southern colonies, the operations were not conducted against civilians. However, under your political definition, even those battles fought between Continental Army and British Regular forces would constitute terrorism, as the American forces were not members of a recognized nation state. Which, of course, renders the definition meaningless. I thought you were the one who claimed to be attempting to minimize casualties. Guess what, your entire argument here is built on the faulty assumption, first foisted on the world by the Prussian Clauswitz, and brought to its logical conclusion in WWI, that war even between nation states must by necessity be total war. I submit (and again a topic for another thread) that Clauswitz was wrong, and the adoption of his principles by modern states has led to more horror and suffering than any combination of terrorist acts ever in history. This is the paradigm that needs to change. Defining terrorism more narrowly is one step on that road. War IS hell. The idea, embodied in my definition, is an attempt to mitigate the effects on civilians by stigmatizing the deliberate targetting of noncombatants as terrorism. Your political definition simply perpetuates the Clauswitzian mistake. Precisely what my definition directly confronts, and yours simply perpetuates. Terrorism is the deliberate targetting of civilians. Regardless of who does it. The political motivation of the attacker, or their material wealth, or their status as a nation state, is immaterial. It is an illegitimate act. Period.

Rather than continuing the point-by-point, I think it makes more sense at this juncture to establish the rationale for my definition, and for my contention that terrorism is a useful descriptive, well within and consistent with international law and the principles of Just War, from which the definition is derived. Let's see if this is more than "sophistry" as you claim.

quote:

---

Warfare is so brutal that it is easy to understand the cynicism that doubts whether the words war and morality even belong in the same sentence.

​

That is not the way that the military looks at it, however. In the years since the war in Vietnam and revulsion at events like the My Lai massacre, leadership of the armed forces has probably been way ahead of civilian policy makers in giving heed to traditional standards of ethical conduct in battle. No one imagines that these standards will be perfectly observed in the heat of combat, but they provide precious barriers against the descent into utter inhumanity.

​

Most of this growing ethical concern has centered on sparing civilians. The principles are simple, even if observing them is not. First, civilian casualties must be an unavoidable side effect of military action, not an intended and purposeful part of it. Second, there must be some proportionality, however hard to define precisely, between the military objectives and the extent of civilian death and suffering.

---

Peter Steinfels The Brutality of War, and the Innocents Lost in the Crossfire, NY Times, 20 Nov 04The above article provides a nice introduction to my argument. Legitimate tools of war are bound by two overriding principles: the Rule of Proportionality, to which Steinfels refers, and the Rule of Discrimination, which requires that every effort be made to limit military actions to identifiable military objectives (IOW, it is incumbent upon the belligerents to discriminate between military and civilian targets).Although you quoted portions of the IV Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions in your response, that protocol has been shown to be insufficient, both to define legitimate tools of war, AND to truly protect civilians given the evolution of conflict over the last half century. However, international law HAS kept pace with this evolution to some extent. A more germane discussion relates to the Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions. A detailed examination of the relevant portions of this protocol provides both a rejoinder to your contentions, and justification for my definition.

quote:

---

Article 35.-Basic rules

​

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

​

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

​

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

---

Article 35 establishes the primacy of the Just War principle of proportionality. No belligerent may use overwhelming force or indiscriminant weapons where such useage would cause widespread casualties among noncombatants. This is further defined in Article 51. Since this is the most important article in the context of both terrorism and minimizing civilian casualties, a thorough examination is required.

quote:

---

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population

​

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.

​

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

---

Gee, paragraph two is almost verbatim what my definition of terrorism is all about, isn’t it? Acts or threats of violenceto spread terror among the civilian population. The deliberate targeting of civilians is prohibited. BY DEFINITION, the deliberate targeting of civilians to produce terror is terrorism. That’s where the flipping word comes from. It isn’t some useless semantic or propaganda tool as you assert. It constitutes acts that are specifically prohibited under international law.

quote:

---

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

---

As I pointed out previously, if you pick up a gun for whatever reason, you forfeit the right to be considered a noncombatant civilian. Again, my statement is backed up by defined international law. Where’s yours?

quote:

---

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

​

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

​

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

​

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

---

Paragraph 4 prohibits among other things the use of carpet bombing and indiscriminant use of artillery and airstrikes on cities, etc. It enshrines the Just War principle of Discrimination. It also, by extension, provides additional condemnation of the use of terrorist tactics such as the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Again, the intent is to limit — but not eliminate — civilian casualties. This is further clarified in paragraph 5: [quote]5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (prohibition against carpet bombing, cf. Tokyo or Dresden)(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.(This is an especially important section in the context of your argument. It recognizes the fact that civilians WILL be in harms way during military conflicts. A very succinct restatement of the Just War principle of Proportionality. It states that there will be occasions where military objectives necessary to the prosecution of combat operations may entail civilian casualties, but requires military commanders to take due regard for limiting such casualties. However, it also makes it clear that military necessity IS NOT the only criteria, and cannot be used as an excuse for killing civilians — as you claim.)[quote] More detail on proportionality is contained in Article 57:

quote:

---

Article 57.-Precautions in attack

​

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. (Due regard)

​

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

​

(a) Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

​

(i)Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them; (Further prohibition against the deliberate targeting of civilians, i.e., terrorism)

​

(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

​

(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; (This subparagraph is where we can truly argue whether or not military operations in Fallujah, for instance, were excessive. The key here is what constitutes excessive use of force. You might be able to make a case that this rule was violated, although thus far you have failed to do so.)

​

(b) An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

​

(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

​

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects. (I submit that the US operations in Fallujah have been generally conducted in accordance with this principle. You must counter this with specific examples where this rule was violated to make your case.)

​

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.

​

5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

---

The two key points here are:1. The definition of terrorism that I use has the force of international law behind it. It is the only operational definition of terrorism that can be effective. It is NOT propaganda as you contend. Whether or not the definition is misused is immaterial — the definition is valid and underscored by law.2. The mere fact that military operations cause civilian casualties does not make those operations illegal. Military commanders are required by law to justify the specific uses of force and/or methods if those actions cause civilian casualties, however. Yes, it is conceivable that this could be abused. However, the fact that a case can be made concerning violations of international law in specific circumstances at least provides a check on unfettered use of military force — IMO a salutary and welcome move toward adoption of Just War principles. It also again places terrorism beyond the pale.Oh, yeah. BTW your lumping guerrillas or insurgents in with terrorists is also shown to be erroneous under this protocol:

quote:

---

Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

---

IOW, as long as guerrilla organizations or insurgents limit their activities and avoid deliberate attacks against civilians, even if they are not members of duly constituted or recognized statal armed forces, they are considered legitimate combatants. Compare with terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. There IS a distinction between terrorist and guerrilla.PS: If you wish to continue the argument concerning the Napoleonic guerre a l'outrance enshrined in "On War" vs the modern concept of Just War derived in large measure from Grotius, you'll need to open a new thread.

Much better. At least you refrained from accusing me of sophistry and utopianism, and only used the word hypocrite once. If we can continue in that vein, it might be possible to have an actual discussion rather than you simply casting aspersions on my character, integrity, intelligence, etc.It appears you are willing to stipulate that there are laws that govern the conduct of military operations, and that these laws specifically delimit the methods and tools that may be employed. In addition, it appears you are willing to agree that the definition I propose for terrorism flows from these laws (although I didn’t derive my definition from this protocol, it is consistent with it), whether you agree with my definition or not. Let me know if this isn’t the case.I see our disagreement stemming from two primary points:1. You continue to proclaim that any use of the word terrorism is propagandistic and self-serving. In a sense, the haves use it as a convenient term to stigmatize the have nots as it suits their purpose. IOW, it has no operational or juridical meaning. I contend that, on the contrary, the use of the term can have both meaning in the context of international law AND can be a useful distinction from an operational standpoint.2. In a related but not strictly parallel argument, you state that any combat operation where civilian casualties are incurred is indistinguishable from terrorism, hence rendering the term additionally meaningless. In fact, you go further by averring that any operation in civilian areas by statal forces will knowingly cause civilian casualties, and therefore is both illegitimate and indistinguishable from actions perpetrated by such organizations as Al Qaeda, etc, regardless of intent, simply by virtue of the fact that civilians are harmed. IOW, there is no way to distinguish between terrorism and combat operations in built-up areas that cause civilian casualties. I contend, on the other hand, that intent IS of critical importance as it renders certain methods and actions used specifically by statal forces (since they’re the only ones with the capability) hors la loi by identifying them as terrorism as opposed to legitimate military operations. In addition, I contend that such recognition can serve to prevent the worst damage to civilian areas and mitigate inevitable civilian casualties in time of conflict.Before beginning to flesh out my argument further, I’d like to address up one or two peripheral points. The right to self defense of an individual in a combat zone is neither generally recognized nor particularly germane in this context. In the first place, the only internationally recognized right to self defense derives from the jus ad bello principles as found, for instance, in the UN Charter. IOW, the only legal right is that of a state that either finds itself attacked, or can reasonably consider itself under imminent threat. (I purposely used quotes around the term reasonable as this in my opinion is one of the most flagrantly and grossly abused principles in the entire Charter. After all, the US claimed imminent threat before the Iraq invasion — a claim that is questionable to say the least.) Under the Convention (and I don’t remember the specific article, but see the leve en masse provisions), any civilian who takes up arms in defense of their home in the face of invasion, for instance, is granted the status of legitimate combatant. Hmmm, sounds like just what I stated: you pick up a weapon, you’re a combatant. In the context of what we are discussing, picking up a weapon makes that individual a legitimate target of military action. Note well, I never stated that this hypothetical individual was necessarily automatically a member of a given organization, which renders your victim-police analogy spurious — rather that taking up arms for whatever reason forfeits the individual’s right to protection as a non-combatant civilian. It does, however, grant them the status of POW if captured, for what that’s worth. This conclusion does not follow from your argument. Civilians may NOT be killed with impunity, unless and until they take up arms — in which case they are no longer considered civilians under the law. As far as a post facto analysis goes, although I agree that history is written by the winners, it does not follow that indiscriminant slaughter of civilians will either go unnoticed or unpunished, especially in modern warfare. The only argument that holds water relates to excessive use of force, as in the example you relate concerning the allegations of the UNHCHR. The mere fact that such allegations have been brought up, as well as the undoubted investigation that will follow, renders your contention that civilians can be killed with impunity rather moot, wouldn’t you say? You can’t. OTOH, as is evident in the article you quote, the UN certainly can, and is doing so. Whether the US abides by it or not is immaterial. Your contention is that such actions are conducted with impunity. They are not. Oh, the US may refuse to abide by any findings. However, the record will be there, and even the US cannot afford to completely ignore international law and international opinion. At least if the abuses are flagrant and extreme. Note the rush to prosecute the Marine who murdered the wounded combatant, and the prosecution of the Abu Ghraib violators. Now, I won’t argue that in these two cases if a third party hadn’t made the original accusations, little would have occurred. OTOH, my team was subject to two GC investigations during Desert Storm. Both of which were generated and investigated internally by the military, without third party intervention or even knowledge. I submit therefore from my own certain knowledge that the US military in general takes the Conventions very seriously, especially the IV Protocol. Again, you have not made the case that excessive force is used in any of the instances — except Grozny which I already stipulated is very likely a blatant violation of the Conventions. As far as the ICJ goes, I’m not sure I disagree with the US position on that body. However, I believe that discussion is off-topic for this thread. Feel free to open a new thread, or perhaps simply read the linked thread where I outline some of my reasons why I feel the ICJ is neither useful as constituted or a realistic approach to dealing with the issues under its mandate. I don’t know the exact circumstances concerning the hospital to which you refer — perhaps you could provide more detail. OTOH, I am aware that a number of mosques, usually considered off-limits under the Protocol, were attacked because they were being used as strongpoints by armed insurgents. In addition, apparently fairly large caches of arms and munitions were found in several of them (at least according to news reports). The protocol does not prohibit attacks against such civilian structures if and only if they are being used by one side or the other for military purposes — thus forfeiting their protected status. Exactly like the case of a civilian who takes up arms. IF (and I say IF) the hospital was being used as a base of operations, or was reasonably believed to be so used, then attacking it was legitimate. In this particular case, assuming you’re reporting the facts accurately, it appears that the attack was a mistake. However, getting from this to an accusation of indiscriminant targeting of protected structures or facilities would have to entail evidence of a concerted campaign to destroy ALL hospital facilities in the city — a case that quite plainly did not occur. In the particular case you cite, IMO the US DOES have the obligation to prove that whatever information led to the attack justified the apparent violation. Herein lies the heart of the disagreements I outlined waay up at the top of this post. It is NOT a self-serving definition because, if adopted, it forthrightly condemns the specific actions taken by wealthy, organized states as well as small, marginal groups. Admittedly, it may be somewhat unrealistic to assume that the US, for instance, will be willing to openly admit to or condemn its own past use of these illegitimate tactics (such as carpet bombing civilian areas during WWII), but if it serves to provide even some restraint on the tools and methods employed by these states by correctly labeling them as what theyare — even if not overtly acknowledged — then I submit that it constitutes a valid first step toward eliminating them from the military repertoires of these nations.Terrorism is self-defeating. At no time and in no case to my knowledge in the history of conflict have deliberate attacks against civilians been effective in accomplishing military objectives. On the contrary, they have invariably been either ineffective OR have had the opposite of the intended effect: they have served to coalesce uncommitted civilian sentiment against those who use them. On this basis alone, IMO, modern states can be convinced that it lies in their own self-interest to adopt this definition and render attacks against civilians completely unacceptable.OTOH, your approach whereby any military operation that causes civilian casualties is lumped under one large grab bag of condemnation — which as you rightly pointed out the major powers are going to ignore anyway — merely serves to perpetuate the status quo. No nation deploying armed force is going to be willing to allow their enemies (however that is defined) to operate with impunity behind the shield of noncombatants. It is an ugly dilemma, and innocents-in-the- crossfire is a situation as old as war itself. The only hope to mitigate this unacceptable cost of conflict is to force — either through internal recognition of the uselessness of such tactics, or through international pressure — states to refrain from the use of those methods which serve to greatly increase civilian casualties. IOW, refrain from the use of terrorism. To do this, there must be a definition of terrorism that both condemns the targeting of civilians AND recognizes the unfortunate realities of conflict. Mine comes closest. Yours merely begs the issue.As far as your argument concerning excessive use of force, this is a distinct, albeit related, topic. Again, it goes back to intent: if the intent of this force is to cause terror among the civilian population — to deliberately target individuals or noninvolved groups — then it is terrorism pure and simple, whether perpetrated by a state or what we typically label terrorist groups. OTOH, accusations that a state used excessive force when attacking an insurgent group or whomever embedded in a civilian population is a distinct issue. It may be criminal under international law. It may even be classifiable as a war crime. It is not, however, terrorism. It IS important to make the distinction: the use of terror can be effectively eliminated from the military tactics of states. The use of force in civilian areas, even if causing civilian casualties, more than likely can not be eliminated because of the realities of armed conflict.I submit we need to approach the subject as an exercise in the art of the possible.

Now you’re back to name calling again. Don’t you realize yet that referring to someone who disagrees with you as hypocrite tends to obscure what are otherwise excellent discussion points? And that continuing to do so makes people less and less interested in discussing things with you? I would greatly appreciate it if you could restrain yourself in future responses. I understand you disagree, however there’s no need for name-calling. Let me know if you are unable to comply with this request, as that will save me a great deal of time and effort in replying to you. Last warning. I don’t entirely disagree with this. I am also leery of giving complete endorsement to existing international laws and institutions, and for not entirely different reasons than yours. OTOH, I consider such documents as the UN Charter and the Conventions to be admirable attempts to regulate relations between states, and mitigate some of the worst abuses — even if either dishonored in the breach or (IMO) fundamentally ineffective. Without such laws and institutions, there would be NO check, even if solely moral, on the actions of states. And since we are discussing statal actors as the greatest abusers, I think it’s important to keep this in mind. They may be able to claim the moral high ground, but truth will out. Although small-scale atrocities may go unnoticed and hence unrecognized, any large-scale atrocity such as indiscriminant bombing of towns or deliberate massacres of civilians are unlikely to pass unnoticed. Yes, I understand your argument that there is no organization with the punitive or coercive powers to call major states to task for committing atrocities. However, I think you underestimate the cost to states for flagrant and continuing violation. Not even the US can completely ignore international opinion with impunity. In fact, I would submit that the evidence that at least in those cases where US servicepeople have been caught red handed as it were, the response was not to deny or ignore the allegations, but rather to initiate an immediate investigation and rush to prosecution, shows that the even the US is sensitive to charges of GC violations, etc. I admit, however, that lesser charges and allegations ARE ignored (the Guatanamo detainees being a case in point — I find NO justification of any kind for the way the Afghan prisoners have been processed and incarcerated without due process in either international or even US domestic or military law, and I have major concerns over the existence of military tribunals vice civil prosecution — however that’s a different topic). I wouldn’t call it an attack on your point. However, I agree that my response deals with the laws governing the relationship between statal forces and civilians. Primarily, this is due to the fact that the only extant international laws are couched in those terms. However, that doesn’t change the fact that individual rights to self-defense are not recognized under international law except as outlined in the levee en masse provisions. The only internationally recognized rights and protections deal with noncombatants. This is not unreasonable — it is functionally impossible to distinguish between an armed civilian and an armed combatant who is not a member of a statal military force. As well, from a strictly military point of view, it doesn’t matter whether the person shooting at you is a civilian or a soldier. Nor does it matter why that person is shooting at you. The mere fact that they are engaged in combat actions makes them a combatant.As far as your contention that civilians have no rights, you are in error. That is in fact the entire purpose of both the GC and the 1977 Protocols — to provide at least legal protections for civilians and their property. How that holds up on the ground, as it were, is entirely dependent on both the intensity of the combat and the willingness of the belligerents on both sides to recognize and honor the non-combatant status of civilians caught in the middle. The simplistic answer to your question is, nothing. However, the fact that the US HAS investigated and/or prosecuted several cases, including Abu Ghraib and the murder of the wounded insurgent, means that at least where evidence of atrocity has been irrefutable, the US is willing to take action to police its own military. Given my own experience, I would be willing to guess that there have been even more investigations that don’t make the media, although I have no hard evidence to back that up. You are correct, as I noted above, that the US has chosen to refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ, for example, for purely political reasons, and that this rejection has implications for other nations also choosing to ignore it when it suits their purposes. I don’t necessarily disagree with the US official position on this body, either (different thread). I disagree with your contention that the US refusal to recognize the ICJ necessarily means that it presumes itself innocent. The refusal does mean that it is required to investigate/prosecute its own personnel where violations of international law are documented. And I freely admit that not all allegations are going to be given equal treatment (again, Guatanamo is a case in point, not to mention the invasion of Iraq itself). However, thus far, the US has shown itself willing to at least prosecute some of the more egregious violations. If, as you contend, the US simply chooses to flout international law in toto, then these investigations and prosecutions would never have occurred.As to your subsequent paragraph on Abu Ghraib, I think you need to do some additional research. The investigation covered hundreds of depositions, and prosecution or censure extended from the actual perpetrators up through the chain of command to general officer ranks, and even to the Executive and other agencies of the government. You might find this document AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Prison and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade of interest in your research. And stupid neo-con conspiracy theories support your argument how, exactly? Now you’re accusing me of bigotry? The fact that Russian forces deliberately attempted to raze Grozny to the ground, similar to what the Syrians did at Hama, is why I singled this action out. Not because it was perpetrated by Russians. In a similar vein, I have been quite open in lumping US and Allied actions during WWII as terrorism. Or did you miss that part? Where, in anything I have written, have I cavalierly dismissed allegations of human rights abuses? Also, please point out any instance where I have stated a position that any allegation is a malicious falsehood. Are you having a conversation with someone else? Neither of these are my positions, stated or unstated. This is one of those instances I noted in my opening paragraph that make it less-than-desirable to continuing discussions with you. You seem to think that by the simple virtue of disagreeing with you, I am some kind of apologist for the US. Far from it. I don’t disagree with you. I consider US policy and actions in the Middle East overall to be both short-sighted and ultimately counterproductive. However, this has little to do with whether or not an acceptable definition of terrorism is possible or useful. I refer you to the Abu Ghraib investigation I referenced above. Please digest that before continuing on this line of argument. There is probably no way, up to and including 8x10 color glossies, that I would be able to demonstrate to your satisfaction that the hospital was being used as a military post. OTOH, that wasn’t my contention. If you remember, I specifically asked you to support your claim that it was a deliberate and conscious attack on a known undefended hospital. I used the conditional form deliberately in my statement. Under international law, if the hospital was used as a military position, then it becomes a legitimate target. Period. I also pointed out (in the part of the paragraph you neglected to address), that to make a valid claim that the attack was part of a deliberate policy, there should be evidence of widespread — not simply a single attack — destruction of protected structures. You have not shown this. As to compromising intelligence assets, that’s a very weak and grossly overused excuse, as I’m sure you’ll agree. In this particular case, it isn’t clear that this would be a valid argument. Again, I ask you to provide additional support for your claim. As to the bunker in Baghdad, the fact is it WAS a command bunker, built underneath the area where the civilians were sheltering. From what I remember, the military knew about the bunker, but didn’t know about the civilians. If they had — and this is an allegation which has not (and probably never will be) fully exposed — then I join you in condemning the attack. If they didn’t know about the civilians, then the attack was a deplorable loss of civilian life, but not an illegal or terrorist action. How can you say this? The gravity or extent of a conflict does NOT by any stretch justify the use of terrorist tactics. The firebombing of civilians to no military purpose is terrorism. Period. Getting states to recognize this — or at least recognize the illegitimacy of the tactic, whatever they call it — is a clear step toward your (and my, btw) goal of reducing civilian cost during small and large-scale conflicts. You’re right, in one sense, that it’s unlikely that any state involved in WWII is likely to come out in public with a mea culpa. OTOH, if you delve more than superficially into the professional writings of either military historians or military officers, I think you’ll be surprised to find quite a bit of internal acknowledgement of the illegitimacy of those tactics, and a lot of soul-searching in an attempt to develop alternative tools to accomplish military or statal goals during conflict. Where do you think I come up with this stuff? Since the last time city-levelling weapons such as nukes were used was WWII, even in spite of the defeats in the Korean War once the Chinese became involved (and in spite of the fact that MacArthur demanded that nukes be used to create a cordon sanitaire along the Yalu), I would say that your statement concerning states’ willingness to obliterate the civilian population of their enemies is unsupported. Failed to respond to your challenge? Since you didn’t provide any specific case to examine, I thought you were simply making a rhetorical point. If you want me to respond, be specific in your request. IOW, what battle, what specific period, or what specific nation are you discussing? I don’t know what terms Cromwell used in Ireland. If you’re referring to the massacres at Drogheda or Wexford, the initial attacks in both cases were directed at the royalist defenders. It was only after the defenders were defeated that the cities were sacked — and the majority of the civilian casualties were incurred. It is possible to make a case that the massacres convinced Sir Lucas Taafe at New Ross to surrender rather than fight, but I maintain that the honorable terms gained at New Ross convinced the garrisons at Cork, Youghall, Capperquin and Mallow to surrender — not the massacres of Drogheda and Wexford, which likely would have had the opposite effect. IOW, it wasn’t terrorism that allowed Cromwell to succeed in Ireland. In fact, if you look at examples such as Kilkenny, even though Cromwell was forced to breach the walls with artillery, he was able to convince Sir Walter Butler that if the city was taken by storm, the inevitable sack and massive civilian casualties would be the result. Butler surrendered (and paid 2000 pounds to compensate Cromwell’s soldiers for the lack of loot). In the remaining three major fortifications, Clonmel, Limerick and Galway, although forced to submission by siege (and in the case of Clonmel, heavy republican losses), Cromwell did not permit the sack of the cities, and civilian losses were limited to those entailed by the siege conditions themselves (especially the plague in Limerick). Your contention in this case is unsupported — and mine is supported. Terrorism doesn’t work.I agree that the US actions against Native Americans were genocide. As were the Spanish actions further south. OTOH, I’ve never argued that genocide — eliminating the entire populace — is not an effective tactic. However, it is roundly and justly condemned by nearly everyone except perhaps the practitioners. I suppose that if you consider genocide to be terrorism writ large, you may have a point, although I would argue that genocide is rightly a separate category. What on earth are you talking about? Who mentioned God or divine retribution? This is a very odd statement. True. However, they’ve never successfully pacified it. Which was my entire point. In fact, the use of oppressive and/or terrorist tactics has had the opposite effect in Ireland — hardening both sides. One wonders how the history of that blood-soaked island would have been different if, beginning with the land grants given by Cromwell to his lowland Scots supporters in an effort to develop a Protestant majority and continuing up through the present, a more enlightened approach had been taken. Well, we can start with the Roman slaughter of German villages in reprisal for the Teutoborgwald massacre (hardened the Germanic resistance and ultimately lost the area east of the Rhine to Roman control), pass through the massacres of the Hundred Years War (which were wholly ineffective, and left all sides attempting to fight over exhausted terrain void of civilians — i.e., with no food for their troops), the Boer War (where British tactics of forced relocation ultimately led to international condemnation and the fall of the government — they invented the term concentration camp — and was singularly ineffective in controlling the Boers, and in fact had the opposite effect), to the siege and bombardment of Paris (in the face of strident opposition by von Moltke, which had the result of hardening French resistance), to the widespread tactic of indiscriminantly bombing cities during WWII, which had no effect other than to harden civilian support around their respective governments to the nasty partisan/anti-partisan warfare of the Russian front. The examples are legion. No argument here. My point, however, remains: in order to start the process of eliminating this tactic from the repertoires of states, including the US, a distinction between unacceptable and acceptable actions is required. As is an internal recognition of the ineffectiveness of these tactics. Since there is no international body with effective coercive or punitive powers capable of enforcing these norms, the individual states must come to the realization that such tactics are not in their interests. Can it be done? Je ne sais pas. However, simply throwing up our hands and saying nothing can be done is less than useful. Well, obviously you weren’t arguing with me. I see little in this to disagree with. I especially agree with the idea that we need to focus on the reality of war, vice what we’d like to pretend is the case. Which is why I think it is imperative to approach the subject both as a realistic assessment of what war has been up to now, and how the effects of war can be mitigated. Starting with an agreed upon definition of what constitutes unacceptable tactics. Civilians in their own country when they are used as an interposition between warring factions, by one side or the other, are certainly being used illegally as shields to protect the side so using them. Since the attacker is (at least nominally) constrained by the presence of civilian non-combatants, the point is that this is an unlawful deliberately placing civilians in harms way. I have not excepted states from taking responsibility for civilian losses. I have merely articulated an unfortunate reality of war that you claim to recognize: civilians are going to be harmed in any conflict. My intent is to develop a conceptual framework where those tactics that increase civilian losses are prohibited. With technological advances that allow greater and greater discrimination between what constitutes lawful and unlawful targets, states are finding they have less and less leeway to make excuses when civilians are harmed. I submit that even in Iraq, with all of the apparent lack of accountability on the part of the US forces, the tactics and weapons being employed are substantially LESS likely to cause civilian casualties than the weapons used in any previous conflict. The next generation of systems will be even more discriminatory. Why would states develop these systems if they were not concerned about reducing civilian casualties? Even Fallujah — your favorite example which was from all accounts very much an armed camp in many sectors — was not simply flattened as would have been the case in any previous conflict (and as was the case with Grozny). However, I consider any civilian casualties to be unacceptable, which is why I desire to stigmatize the deliberate targeting of civilians (i.e., terrorism) as an especially heinous affront. I’m not enough of an idealist to think that war can ever be made sterile, but I do think both philosophically and operationally it can be made less deadly to non-combatants. I have never excused attacks on civilians. I have, however, made a distinction between accidental death — however unacceptable — and the illegal tactic of deliberate attack on civilians. There is no free pass clause here. And as you yourself point out, real attacks on real civilians have been a constant in warfare throughout human history. Don’t you think it worthwhile to try and change that? On the contrary, it has nothing to do with uniformed or not; member of state forces or not. I thought I had been very clear that regular statal armed forces have been as guilty of terrorism as any marginal group of nutjobs. You will never stop the nutjobs. You may, OTOH, be able to convince states to cease these operations. Thank you. You have made my point quite effectively. Terrorism as either a military tactic or a tool of state policy is ineffective and/or counterproductive. It doesn’t matter what the perpetrators claim. As a corollary, an internationally accepted definition of terrorism would go far to rendering such transparent excuses even more unacceptable. You talk about my lack of historical knowledge! Where did you derive this idiosyncratic definition of the purpose of militaries? Although defense is one (at least theoretical) use of armed forces, it is neither the most important nor the most historically prevalent use of it. Militaries are an adjunct of state policy — one arm of the government. They have historically been used primarily to impose state will on either other states or internal opposition. In consideration of non-statal actors, armed force is the principal mode of relationship with formal states to which they are opposed. However, in neither of the two cases you cite was use of terrorism instrumental in accomplishing the objectives of the respective organizations. The ANC was successful not through terrorism, but through international pressure and sanctions imposed on the apartheid government, as well as internal pressure from progressive whites (in this case). As far as the IRA goes, this organization has been singularly ineffective in imposing its will on the British government. Even during the height of the IRA bombing campaigns in the UK, the only effect was to harden British public opinion against them — and increase British military intervention. The fallacy of terrorism is the belief that continued acts of violence against civilians will somehow show the ineffectiveness of a state to protect them. In no case in history has this been proven out — whether carried out by Che Guevara or the Red Brigades or Theodore Roosevelt. As I have never excused anyone, and have in fact roundly condemned state and nonstate actors using this tactic, I will simply reiterate that the next time you use the term hypocritical or hypocrite in relation to me or anything I write, will be the last time you and I exchange messages.

That's it. I'm done. Screw you pal. Too bad, it was an interesting discussion. Someday maybe you'll grow up and learn how to converse like an adult.

Whatever, junior. Feel free to continue talking to yourself.

Hi PE. Although I don't concede the point on "criminal" negligence, which has rather specific connotations, I will concede that a) the invasion of Iraq itself was illegal under international law, and b) in that context any loss of civilian life is therefore unjustified by definition. The US's entire approach to Iraq is wrong. However, I don't believe anyone has made a conclusive case for systematic disregard for human rights OR human life. I would be willing to be convinced, however, if it could be shown that a deliberate policy of either indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas or civilian (i.e., protected) structures was being undertaken. It would not, nor was it intended, to prevent incidents such as Al-Ameriyah. IMO, there is probably no way short of mutually-agreed-upon set-piece battles where both sides line up on an open plain where no civilians can possibly be harmed - sort of like a football game - to avoid civilian casualties in a conflict situation. Nor is it possible to avoid civilian deaths when the combat takes place in built-up areas. As the only other way to conduct combat operations in urban areas is by seige, which entails as much if not more civilian suffering (see, for example, the seige of Lenningrad in WWII), it isn't clear to me that there is any way to avoid civilian casualties except by conceding defeat as soon as urban areas are involved. And that IS unrealistic. This is a very valid question that goes to the heart of the entire dispute. If we do away with the word "terrorism" because of its overuse/misuse and the extraneous baggage that has been attached to the word (as contracycle suggests, and as I have agreed, the word has become mere propaganda in the hands of state actors that wish to stigmatize their opponents, regardless of justification), rather than attempting to narrow and operationalize the existing definition, what do we have left? How do we delegitimize the use of terror tactics directed at civilians - e.g., the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and structures whether in the context of Clauswitzian "true war" between states or in the context of non-state actors? The point is it doesn't matter if we use "terrorism" or "ylzcgvawse" to describe what we are trying to eliminate: the objective is to eliminate the one cause of civilian casualties during conflict that it is possible to eliminate. I submit that using an already existing term (that everyone claims to "understand" but no one has effectively defined), regardless of existing connotations AND at the same time convincing state actors of the utter futility of this tactic for the accomplishment of their political-military objectives, then we have gone a very long way down the road to eliminating the deliberate targeting of civilians as a tool of war. With this accomplished, it seems to me to be a logical continuation that other tools that cause suffering in a civilian population during conflict can ALSO be addressed. Or at least we have a better shot at it.I am open to alternative suggestions. Does anyone see any other possible way of accomplishing what we all are quite clearly attempting?

With all due respect (yeah, right ), it wasn't the name calling (e.g., hypocrite) that convinced me to consign contracycle to the dustbin. The name-calling is merely infantile and easily ignored. It was the continued, deliberate, and egregious mischaracterizations of my statements and position, as well as the repeated failure to even acknowledge my points (let alone admit he was flat out wrong, as in the Cromwell case), rather expending tremendous amounts of virtual ink to denigrate and insult, not to mention simply repeating his mantra, that convinced me he is completely not worth the time it takes to respond to him.

Hi PE:Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I hadn't realized you'd replied until I checked my message log today (I've been a tad busy). Agree to disagree sounds reasonable. I think there are a lot of aspects to this conflict which are truly "plain negligence" - beginning with the failure to develop contingency plans for what was surely a fairly predictable outcome of the ground offensive. In any event, perhaps another time. I agree with you that there is a moral equivalency between hostage beheadings and carpet bombing cities. OTOH, as you said, defining terrorism via intent won't prevent repeats of Al-Ameriyah. I'm not sure anything CAN prevent a repetition of something like this. However, I'm also not sure that simply ignoring the rather specific dimensions of terrorism - or lumping ALL casualties (intended or not) into the same rubric - will accomplish anything either. In an ideal world, there would be no conflict, which is the only way I can think of to completely eliminate civilian casualties. In the current world, we need to develop ideas, tools and yes, moral view, that takes reality of conflict into consideration, rather than simply hoping it will go away - or making war crimes accusations against militaries who accidently kill civilians during the course of conflict. Theoretically, yes: someone does check the coordinates. A call for artillery fire or air support has built in checks. I don't know what specifically happened to circumvent those checks in this instance. However, we have training accidents all the time in the US where an incorrect coordinate or incorrect manual azimuth setting sends a round off in a direction not intended. In combat, when the pressure is much higher, it is practically inevitable. During Desert Storm, not only was an armored unit chewed up by DU munitions in an air attack during the ground war, but a Marine company belonging to 6th RCT (I can't remember which battalion - it may have been 1/6) was "attacked" by US aircraft using Rockeye cluster even before the ground war started - and they were still in Saudi Arabia in a prepared position south of the berm (thank doctrine they were dug in, no one was hurt). This pilot didn't even bomb the right country. Human error is an inevitable adjunct to any human endeavor. Unfortunately, such errors in combat invariably cost lives - whether among civilians or fratricide (i.e., so-called "friendly fire" incidents). Not just Iraq: the shoot-down of the Iranian airliner (a clear error in judgement under pressure), the accidental shelling of an allied position during the Suk el Gharb offensive in Beirut (Sep 83 - technical error), the bombing of the village in Afghanistan (clear human error), etc. A list of such errors can be gleaned from every conflict of the modern world: none however indicate sustained and consistent policy. This doesn't mean we shouldn't work to minimize them - and there should never be any "excuse". An explanation is not an excuse - it's a way of learning from mistakes.However, only a repeated and consistent pattern of continual "errors" can reasonably be used as a basis for claims of criminal negligence. I don't disagree completely. I admit that my hope is probably illusion. We obviously have to do something, however. What's happening now - both in Iraq and elsewhere - is unacceptable. Even a partial solution is better that nothing. I don't think the UN has ever had the capability you state is needed. The "toothlessness" of this body has been inherent since its beginning. However, as Churchill said about democracy: "[It] is the worst form of government on the planet - except for all the others." In the UN's defense, I don't think it was ever really envisioned as the world's policeman. I think a case can be made that for what it was intended, it hasn't done a bad job overall. Few states have ever paid much more than lipservice to the UN when it conflicted with their interests.However, I'm not sure that defining terrorism will necessarily automatically create a ready-made excuse for states to do what they want. Certainly some definitions, for instance the "political violence" type, do even more damage than what you're worried about: they allow states to declare their own, legitimate internal opposition to be terrorists. At least with mine, we're trying to get away from this kind of doublespeak at least as concerns statal armed forces.