What, if Anything, is a "Terrorist"?

Pogo famously puts his finger on the problem

There is no doubt that the US and its allies (including my country of Canada) are in a war of some sort. People are killing and being killed, driven from their homes, subjected to oppressive regimes. Bombs are falling, bullets are flying.

It's a war.

But who is the enemy?

Along side the physical war there is a war of terminology. Please allow me to muddy the waters further ...




The 9/11 attack made rhetorical demands on the newly-inaugurated George Bush, who was not a "big thinker". The best he could come up with was the idea that it was about "democracy" and those who "hate" democracy. For students of democracy, this hardly passes the laugh test. America is hardly a model for actual on-the-ground democracy, although it has some good ideas. The additional problem is that Bin Laden himself seemed to be a champion of democracy, or at least the enemy of oppression, such as the brutal regimes in the Arab world (including Saudi Arabia), the occupation of Palestine by ultra-Zionists, the presence of huge military forces in Saudi Arabia and so on. So it's not about "democracy".

How about "Islam"? In the early days of the Bush war, he spoke of a battle of civilizations -- clearly meaning that "victory" would mean spreading American culture (including evangelical Christianity) throughout the Middle East, defeating the ignorance then prevailing in that part of the world. People didn't laugh at this one. It was plainly insensitive to the point of craziness.

How about "militant Islam" or "Islamist"? Actually this comes a bit closer to the truth. The idealogical thread that binds Al Qaida the Taliban and ISIS can be followed back to Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia. However, since the Saudis were officially on our "side" (Bin Ladan was a rebel against the Royal Family), any inclusion of "Islam" was politically unwise and seemed somehow intolerant. Also, moderate Muslims were clamouring to make sure that Bin Laden and friends were not "real" Muslims, just like we all like to think the Crusaders were not "real" Christians. 

How about "Insurgents"? This term became very popular and was rarely challenged.  So, for example, Iraqis fighting against the US occupying force were "Insurgents", not "freedom fighters". Taliban, fighting in their own country against American invaders were also "insurgents". They themselves made clear distinctions between themselves and "foreigners" like Al Qaida, but it took years before the US became aware of the difference. Al Qaida was not really welcome in Afghanistan or even Pakistan where they were sheltered for years. They soon hit the road and found friends all around the world.

How about "terrorists". In popular discussion, a "terrorist" is someone who uses an IED rather than a remotely piloted aircraft to kill people. So I guess "our side" should be called "dronists" or maybe just "drones". A terrorist is somebody who threatens to cut your head off "up close and personal". The threat of annihilating all the cities of your enemy, killing millions at a stroke is modern, civilized warfare. "Terror" is the feeling of people in American shopping centres that a bunch of crazy people will start shooting everybody or set off a bomb. This justifies flying armed drones 24/7 over large parts of Pakistan. Pakistanis don't feel "terror" like white folks do. Slaughter of entire families of innocent Muslims is not the same thing as the killing of American soldiers -- a criminal act that has sent more than a few to a new home in Guantanamo Bay.

I suppose it is darkly appropriate that ISIS now fights with modern weapons captured from the Americans. They don't need to use decapitation so much - they can kill more efficiently in a modern, civilized way. They are still pretty damn scary though. So are "we".

War is terrifying. To understand it, you need to see things from the point of view of the people terrified, not just the people using terror as a weapon.