Today, we are bombarded by the term terrorist or terrorism to describe the enemy that the western world faces today. Google books Ngram reader is a very interesting tool to study the relevancy of words throughout history. When the terms Nazi, Socialist, and Terrorist are plugged into the Ngram reader, there are three distinct and spread peaks that show the term ‘Nazi’ occupying the 1940’s, ‘Socialist’ occupying the Cold War era, and ‘Terrorist’ occupying the post 9/11 era. At first glance, it appears that terrorism fits in with the trend that every conflict that America fights has one distinct word to clearly and accurately describe the enemy it faces. However, this is not the case as terrorism does not accurately describe the conflicts that America and the West have been fighting since 9/11, as terrorism describes a means a goal, not the goal itself.
In World War II and the Cold War, the enemies that America faced were clearly defined as the Nazis, and in the later the Communists or Socialists. Both of these classifications clearly defined the enemy that America was facing, which allowed America to understand and combat these enemies in an appropriate way. In addition to being both clearly defined, both of these ideologies could be easily and correctly attached to a state without alienating a large portion of the American population (this is a problem today, as (unlike the other terms) ‘terrorist’ cannot be attached to a specific ideology or state without alienating a large portion of the population), defining these conflicts with even more accuracy.
However, Terrorism is a very different beast. It is much more vague than the other terms. The state department describes it as, “ Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Shirk), but this definition contradicts the original use of the word during the French revolution. During the French revolution, the word was used to describe the actions of a tyrannical government, not a rag-tag fringe group (Shirk). Ironically, based on the original French connotation of the word, most state actors could be considered terrorists to some extent, as the U.S. terrorists the terrorists with thing such as drones. Unsurprisingly, the word's connotation is mainly due to government's changing their definition of the word, so that they are not depicted as terrorists.
The U.S. and the allies definitely triumphed over the Nazis and it can be argued that the U.S. triumphed over Soviet Socialism, but it is hard to argue that the U.S. has had any real victory over the ‘terrorists.’ This is because terrorism is fundamentally different than the other two terms, while it is the means to an end goal, not an actual goal in it of itself. If the United States wishes to win this unknown conflict of the 21st century, then it must clearly and correctly define what it is fighting against. How is it possible to beat an undefined enemy?
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your blog post on terrorism. I do agree that it is a very unique thing. I never thought about how terrorism was the means to an end goal instead of the goal itself before.
-Baylie
Very interesting question at the end, Ben. I do not think that terrorism can ever be completely extinguished because there will always be a group of people that hate another. You are right that the United States' "War of Terrorism" is very vague and can stand for any group as long as they hate the U.S. and what we stand for. Terrorist groups, while small, are spread out and therefore will continue to gain more members. The changing definition is annoying. Every person also has a very different opinion of what terrorism is as it can be seen in our class discussion about "who is a terrorist". Now that you have brought it up, I do not think that it is completely possible to defeat any terrorist organization because its ideals will live on and some person is bound to believe in them.
ReplyDelete