Issues with the War on a Tactic: Understanding Terrorism and its Responses
- Big Eyes
- Dec 11, 2015
- 7 min read
Above: Cartoon by Jonik on the naming of the 'War on Terror'
"First they steal the words, then they steal the meaning". When Orwell introduced the idea of doublespeak as the political language that distorts or reverts meaning to its suited ideological aspirations, he might not have imagined how applicable the concept finds itself today as the past decades have seen the West embark on its "War on Terror". First declared by President Bush in September 2001 as a response to the 9/11 attacks on U.S soil, what exactly a 'Global War on Terror' means and who exactly qualifies as 'terror' has been highly ambiguous and its consequences vastly critiqued. In this short analysis, I will seek a more thorough understanding of what terms like 'terror' or 'terrorism' really mean, how they have been interpreted and presented by political discourses and media narratives, and the issues and consequences with their current, vague applications.
The first step is to find an accurate definition of 'Terrorism' that finds itself free of ideological subjections or political conotations and through which we can try to better understand what qualifies as a terror act and analyse media and political responses to them. In the introduction to her study of international law and terrorism, R. Higgins notes the difficulties with defining terrorism and she concludes that it is a 'term of convenience', meaning it is has no juridicial meaning but can be a convenient way of describing certain situations, which is why it is important to find a definition of terrorism that identifies its complexities and the variety of its potential applications. Not to be confused with guerrila warfare, whose tactics are often identical to those of terrorism, the definition of terrorism I believe is best suited for this short analysis is one offered by academic Jean-Marc Sorel, terrorism can be understood as "an illicit act (irrespective of its perpetrators or its purpose) which creates a disturbance in the public order as defined by the international community, by using serious and indiscrimminate violence (in whatever form, whether against people or public or private property) in order to generate an atmosphere of terror with the aim of influencing political action". What is important to take from this definition are two things: first, that terrorism is a modern political tactic that utilises fear and violence to spread political or ideological aims and secondly, that defining terror acts can be a subjective process in which certain perpetrators are deemed terrorists whilst others are ignored or even accepted by the international community - from which many authors note that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Yet is there a skewed perception of the contemporary 21st century terrorist, seeing that the term is now most often used to define extremist Islamic fundamentalists? Do our definitions and applications of terrorism change depending on the attackers? Are there acts of terrorism, as defined by our proposed definition of the term, that have been left ignored or described as another form of crime? Most importantly, do media narratives of terrorism change depending on their race or religious beliefs? When presented with the terms 'terrorism' or 'terror attacks', people's assumptions are often constructed to assume it was carried out by Islamic extremists, such as those that committed the 9/11 attacks in NYC, the 7/7 bombings in London, or even the November 2015 Paris attacks. Yet, if terrorism is meant to describe any violent act committed with political or ideological aims, why is it that the word is more often used to denounce muslim fundamentalism than its non-muslim counterparts? When Anders Breivik, motivated by his far-right anti-multiculturalism beliefs, killed 77 people in Norway in July 2011, the focus of many media-narratives was less on Breivik's actions being a form of terrorism but rather on how he exemplfied a "lone-wolf" mentally-problematic character. The same can be said of media portrayals of the Charleston mass shooting in which Dylan Roof killed 9 church-goers in the attempt to start a race-war with many mainstream news medias focusing on his untreated psychological issues and problematic personality as opposed to his act as one used "in order to generate an atmosphere of terror with the aim of influencing political action". Let me not even begin on the irony of Robert Lewis Dear, who entred a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado and shot 3 people, and who justified his murderous actions with his distorted view of pro-life Christian beliefs claiming he was a 'warrior for the babies'. At the end of the day, these men's actions share so many ideological features of those committed by Islamic fundamentalists; they aim to incite an unrenconcilable 'Clash of Civilizations' in which the "West' and non-white minorities are completely divided and at cultural war with each other, they murdered relentlessly and heartlessly innocent civilians who not only didn't share their extreme views but represented the opportunity for multiculturalism and peaceful cohabitation throughout the world, and they believed that through the 'martrydom' of their acts they would be able to incite others who share their view to take political or violent action. So why is it that some are considered and presented to us as 'crazy, one-off attackers' who don't in any way represent the views of those with the same socio-cultural or religious background whilst after any attack by Islamic fundamentalists, the whole Muslim community and Islamic religion is put under re-evaluation and asked to justify its peaceful nature. I once even found myself, suprised at the remarks so casually thrown into conversation, arguing avidly with a well-educated classmate that the Q'ran is no more 'aggressive' or 'violent' than the roots and scriptures of Christian religions (please check out an interesting social experiment video that can prove you this here). After all, a 2015 New America Foundation study found that more U.S citizens on American soil had been killed by white right-wing extremists than Islamic fundamentalists, despite the latter being judged and sentenced far more harshly than their right-wing counterparts.
This is not to say that the contemporary global threat of Islamic fundamentalism and their use of terror tactics should be ignored or deemed unimportant; it is clear with the rise of extremist movements accross the world - from ISIS' Middle East based global 'crusade' against the West to Boko Haram in Nigeria who regularly kidnaps, kills, and terrorises civilians - that numerous extremist factions are actively distorting the messages of the Quran and tainting the perception of Islam accross the world to suit their ideological and world-dividing narratives. My argument rather, is that if we choose to define terrorism and apply it only to a minority of extremist, violent factions, we follow the risk of a simplistic and distorted understanding of what terrorism really is and what the necessary steps are to prevent and limit it in all of the range of its ideological, cultural, or religious justifications. For example, the focus of Western states on their response to ISIS devastating gain of territory in the Iraq and Syria has been primarily on what needs to be done 'over there', with every new attack by IS on European soil (and by European-born citizens) leading Europe and the U.S to intensify their air raids and ineffective military interventions in the region. The direct characterisation of the attackers with being 'Muslim' first and 'European-born' second (if not at all) ignores the need for policies that more thoroughly examine the causes, symptoms and risk of radicalisation and who seek to provide support for disenfranchised communities domestically in order to prevent putting in place the foundations that serve as perfect recruitment ground for ISIS abroad. Also, I want to understand some of the issues that arise when waging a 'War on Terror'; if at the end of the day, terrorism refers not to the ideological background from which it emerges but rather the a tactic utilising violent action for a self-serving political purpose, then how exactly can one wage a war on a tactic? British journalist and author of 'Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam', Jason Burke, has made similar arguments regarding the use of terminology, stating that "Terrorism is afterall a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'". By focusing as Burke suggests on the concept of 'militancy' over 'terror', we put the political motivations - and not the religious indoctrination- of the attackers at the forefront of the conversation, producing a more insightful debate on what can be done to fight these political tactics efficiently. The automatic association of 'Terrorism' to 'Islam' is also highly problematic because it ends up associating these 'militant attacks' to static ancient traditions as opposed to understanding terrorism as the highly complex and modern phenomena that it is. Mahmood Mamdani, who wrote the influencial piece 'Good Muslim, Bad Muslim' warns us of the risk of dehistoricizing the process that creates contemporary political identities. He states, "Terrorism is not born of the residue of a premodern culture in modern politics. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction. Even when it harnesses one or another aspect of tradition and culture, the result is a modern ensemble at the service of a modern project.". It is also evident that the constant association of Islamic terrorists to their religious beliefs, as opposed to their political militant agendas, has been causing an unprecedented backlash of Islamophobia accross the world; barely a month after the Paris November 13 attacks, Donald Trump called for a complete U.S Ban on muslims entering the country, Europe witnessed a rise of islamophobic hate crimes - with the figure of attacks against London muslims tripling in the weeks that followed Paris - and in France the Far-Right Front National party had a sweeping victory in the country's regional elections.
Above: Video by AJ+ News which highlights what it feels to be 'Muslim in America' in the midst of a War on Terror and the risk of a Trump president in 2016
Comments