Violence is Violence
by Abid Imam

With the end of the Cold War, terrorism has replaced Communism as the nemesis of the West. The leaders of the seven most powerful nations recently endorsed this view during the special G-7 summit on terrorism in Egypt. American media write and talk about it incessantly in viciously derogatory tones. By their accounts, terrorism is considered the ultimate, irrational crime, vastly more reprehensible than waging war or supplying arms. Given that terrorism is granted such prominence, it is surprising that the cause of terrorism is rarely examined or discussed. It seems as though ever to defend or rationalize terrorism would be considered a crime tantamount to engaging in the act.

Furthermore, the distinction between freedom fighters, political secessionists, and terrorists, although utterly ambiguous, is firm and impervious )depending on one’s particular bias). While most are considered heinous terrorists, a chosen few are portrayed as political victims. Let us, therefore, examine the difference between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters." Both attempt to achieve political ends through violent, "terror"-inducing means. How then can one objectively make a distinction between the two? Who judges which political goals are more noble? Moreover, the distinctions between state-sponsored violence (i.e. the act of war), military crackdowns on insurgents, counterterrorism, and "terrorist" acts are ambiguous at best. How is it more ethical or permissible for a particular regime of state-sponsored military apparatus to perpetuate violence?

Governments who wage war on insurgents always use the excuse that they are doing so in the interest of national security to protect their sovereignty and to justify their cruelty. Similarly, if one were to question most "terrorist" organizations, they, too, would claim that they were fighting a war or battle in order to protect their regional, religious, or ethnic sovereignty. The difference, many would argue, between state-sponsored violence and terrorism, is that while armies in battle ostensibly target military personnel and sites, terrorists are entirely indiscriminate with their random acts of violence which bring harm to civilians.

First, the assumption that armed forces (state-sponsored) do not target civilians is utterly false. Military strategists may try to avoid the massacre of civilians, but they will always compromise this ostensibly inviolable principle in times of desperation or in the belief that targeting civilians will advantage them strategically. Similarly, many terrorist groups (such as the IRA and Hamas) initially avoid civilian targets but often have to compromise their conscience. History, too, can vouch for the fact that to date there has not been a single war or state-sponsored military crackdown that has not cause civilian deaths. in contrast, the number of victims of terrorist attacks pales in comparison to the millions who have perished in conventional wars. For instance, over 85,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the 40-day Gulf War, despite the fact that the U.S. army was using state-of-the-art equipment such as SMART bombs. In comparison, less than 100 civilians perished in terrorist attacks in Israel during the whole year of 1995.

If one considers the sheer magnitude of civilian deaths, warring armies are, without as doubt, more culpable than terrorist organizations. Why do we not, as a society, then decry warfare with the same disgust and vehemence with which we condemn terrorism? Does the magnitude of casualties not matter? Does not the enormity of Hiroshima and the Holocaust not result from the extraordinarily vast numbers of innocent people who died in these massacres? Would those two incidents have been as shameful and tragic if only a few thousand humans had died? The answer is no. Numbers certainly do, and always will, matter.

Committing a terrorist act is a horrible crime against humanity. But so is any other form of violence, including state-sponsored violence. It is wholly unjust to brand one as the greatest evil and condone the other in times of economic stagnation and imminent presidential elections.

Mr. Imam, CC’98, is a history and international studies major at Yale College.

The Greater Evil
by Alex Williamson

Current public opinion does not hold terrorism and terrorists in high regard. Both conventional warfare and terrorism necessitate killing in order to achieve a desired end. The latter, however, receives condemnation while the former is often justified in the interests of nationals security. Americans cheered when laser-guided SMART bombs demolished entire buildings during the Gulf War and gasped when terrorists tried to do the same thing to the World Trade Center with a truck of explosives.

This is the way that it should be. Despite the bloody similarities, the two practices have notable difference that make terrorism far more morally reprehensible than conventional war. A conventional operation aims to accomplish a particular military objective. Such objectives usually involve capturing, defending or destroying strategic targets of military value. Conventional operations usually employ weapons (such as tanks, fighter bombers, and warships) that are capable of destroying other military targets but are not suitable for destroying civilian targets, such as cities. The purpose of unconventional weapons of mass destruction (such as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or even a fleet of incendiary-laden WWII bombers) is to target civilians. The use of these weapons is not a means of conventional war and often constitutes a kind of terrorism of its own.

A conventional army rarely sets out to simply kill people because doing so would be a waste of valuable resources. These resources are used only to attack those who stand in the way of a military objective. Killing usually becomes necessary to accomplish a conventional military objective but it is not a conventional military objective in and of itself. Terrorism, on the other hand, deliberately attacks civilians to accomplish its objectives. Terrorist attacks succeed by reminding how defenseless its targeted population is. Such helplessness is what terrorists hope to exploit because it leave the target population with only two options: comply with the terrorists’ demand or risk further assaults. For the population, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. If warned, a target population can take actions to avoid such attacks. The killing or harming of the innocent is, therefore, a necessary part of terrorism.

Some will argue that there is nothing wrong with using terrorism if no conventional means are available. This may be true, but such situations are rare. A small band of the poor and oppressed do not have to target the innocent to have an effect. They can wage guerilla warfare on the oppressor’s military forces, wear it down, sap its will to fight, and force it to negotiate. Guerrilla warfare is far more human than conventional warfare because it concentrates on attacking military targets. Furthermore, history has proven that guerrilla warfare is far more effective than blatant acts of terrorism. Algerian rebels brought the French to their knees, the Vietcong humbled the mighty United States, and guerrilla forces in Afghanistan and Chechnya have badly bruised the Russian army. Both Communist China and the U.S. owe heir existence to guerrilla warfare. nobody has been able to achieve these same results with terrorism. Guerrilla warfare requires more time than terrorism, but is more effective and saves the lives of he innocent. A group that resorts to terrorism is impatient, not desperate.

That conventional warfare and terrorism both involve killing is tragic. That defenseless civilians often die because of both is tragic. Such innocent deaths, however, can be avoided in a conventional or guerrilla war but are necessary to terrorism. The trend in conventional warfare is towards weapons that minimize harm to enemy personnel. Terrorists, on the other hand, have begun to use very deadly weapons. Aun Shenrico’s nerve gas attack on downtown Tokyo was calculated and a direct effort to kill people. The nature of terrorism is what makes it so reprehensible and why it deserves its awful reputation.

Mr. Williamson, TC’99, is a political science major at Yale College.