Terrorism There Are a Number

Terrorism

There are a number of ways to interpret terrorist attacks in the modern world. The Bush administration has chosen a particular perspective that is intended to justify the employment of the United States military as a tool for rooting out terrorism in general. However, there are many difficulties with the logical backing for such a position; the way terrorism is understood, and the sources of terrorism have been largely misconstrued. Many people have put forward criticisms of the White House's outlook -- some from particularly visible individuals -- and an equal number of alternative approaches to terrorism have been offered. but, fundamentally, terrorism needs to be understood as a means of waging warfare; usually adopted by those who possess significant strategic and militaristic shortcomings. Terrorism has existed as long as war has existed. Consequently, declaring a war on terror is analogous to declaring a war on infantry: such a conflict will occupy our forces wherever there is war.

Perhaps the most glaring trouble with formally pinpointing terrorism's position upon the spectrum between criminal activity and freedom fighting is the fact that definitions of it seem to elementally fall short. "Over the centuries, terrorists have employed daggers, guns, and bombs to kill and destroy; they have also staged kidnappings and hijackings to intimidate and coerce." This wide variety of aims and methodologies is mirrored by the variety of definitions that have often been assigned to the term. John Richard Thackrah, in his book Encyclopedia of Terrorism and Political Violence, manages to find a total of sixty-seven competing definitions of terrorism; many of which disagree upon major aspects, and some are simply contradictory.

President Bush has made his stance regarding terrorism reasonably clear ever since the topic came to the forefront of national debate. In his speech on September 17, 2002, he laid-out what he believes to be the primary function of the United States government: "Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government." This premise is not justified with any subsequent argumentation, but merely stated as if it were a fact. However, if someone accepts this idea, then the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 definitively represent a breakdown of the federal government, and warrant military retaliation.

He goes on to identify terrorism with "shadowy networks" and the forces of "chaos." To Bush, the very mechanisms of terrorism are the "gravest danger our Nation faces." The fact that terrorism is necessarily covert and inexpensive makes it a deplorable course of action, and associates it with everything that the United States acts against both within our nation and on a global stage. Bush appears to recognize the unique nature of the battle he has declared when he says, "The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents." Still, even though terrorism is punished within our nation on the basis of the individuals who perpetrate it, on an international level Bush's response is to associate it with the political and religious settings that he perceives as breeding this violent infection. The method to preventing terrorism, to Bush, is a two pronged attack: "While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense, we are also strengthening America's homeland security to protect against and deter attack." So, deploying U.S. forces worldwide, while stepping-up the investigative capabilities of our law enforcement officials is the Bush approach to waging a war on terrorism.

Though by no means the authoritative expert upon the definition of terrorism, Bush and his interpretations are most important for their influence upon international policies. The pervasively flawed nature of the definition of terrorism allows for its manipulation and misuse in political and social forums. In short, the imprecise understanding of terrorism grants the cliche, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," some level of credence. Consequently, "Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label 'terrorist' to is opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others of its moral viewpoint. Hence, the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective." Historically, this ambiguity surrounding terrorism has not required much particular attention because it was a largely localized phenomenon, and limited in its scope. However today, the importance of adequately identifying and reacting to terrorism has become amplified both by the lack of geographic confines surrounding its perpetration, and the almost unimaginable levels of destruction that terrorists have the potential to unleash.

In addition to the global demonstration of the power of terrorism on September 11, 2001, it has become increasingly apparent that terrorists maintain the capacity to perform equally devastating acts in other ways as well. Certainly, of all the possible modes of attack terrorists or other enemies might utilize, biological threats are one of the killers that the public is most aware of. The past fifteen years have seen numerous investigations into nations like Iraq and the former Soviet Union; all of which seeking to assess the destructive resources present in these areas. International laws have made some steps to limit the type of weaponry that can legally be used in warfare. "The great loss of lives and resources in World War I led to a popular movement to reduce the horrors of the war. The movement sought to control weapons of war that violated the customs and laws of war." In response to this general public outcry in the wake of the First World War, "The Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic of Arms of 1925 was the first international agreement involving chemical and even biological weapons.... The conference produced the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or Other Gases, and of Bacterial Methods of Warfare, which banned the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons in war." At the time of the conference no one truly recognized the destructive capabilities of biologic war; chemical warfare was their primary concern. But although the treaty limited the use of such weapons, it placed no limits on the production of them. Consequently, nations continued to stockpile and develop weapons of this nature in increasing number and with increasing destructive power.

Later international protocols limited the development of chemical and biological weapons in certain nations identified as "rogue" nations. Obviously, Iraq was one of these countries. With the recognition of potentially dangerous nations and potentially dangerous weapons, it was left up to the world's imagination to speculate specifically what diseases could serve as the most deadly agents. Anthrax was one of the first threats recognized by the media and presented to the public as a tool for terrorists, attached with the message to "be vigilant." These looming threats have magnified terrorism's ideological woes: "The increased importance of terrorism for the policy stance of the governments as well as the need to legally pursue the perpetrators of alleged terrorist acts resulted in quite a few official definitions of terrorism." Essentially, the recently reorganized position of the United States -- to completely eradicate terrorism from the face of the earth -- has made this problem both more difficult and more significant. Doubtlessly, a neutral definition of the term would facilitate its most practical application practically and ethically; unfortunately, the emotionally charged battleground surrounding terrorism almost certainly makes this goal impossible. Out of this, particular interests are often infused into what should be dispassionate formulations of political agendas.

One current example of contrasting definitions of terrorism comes from the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The United States, having undeniably chosen to side with the Israelis, is presented with a serious dilemma when attempting to define terrorism; this is because any neutral definition of the term is likely to implicate Israel as a "terrorist state." From either perspective, Palestinian suicide bombers are undeniably terrorists. This is aligned with one widely accepted definition of terrorism explained by Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir: "Whether the attackers are acting on their own or on the orders of their government; whether they are regulars of irregulars, if the attack is against civilians then they must be considered terrorists." Yet, other public officials have taken a decisively different stand regarding the particulars of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict; Kamal Kharrazi, Iranian Foreign Minister, states, "The Palestinians are resisting the occupation of their land. It is quite different from the terror attacks that were carried out in New York, which the Organization of the Islamic Conference and most Muslim countries have condemned." From this point-of-view, some forms of terrorism can be seen as aspects of insurgent warfare.

This manner of waging war often results in acts of violence, which are condemned by those nations and organizations with the power and resources to avoid such methods: "An insurgency is a protracted struggle conducted methodically, step-by-step, in order to obtain specific intermediate objectives leading finally to the overthrow of the existing order." At its core are the general principles inherent in any revolution. Fundamentally, the insurgents are fighting an enemy with superior weaponry, technology, and resources, so therefore, must seek avenues to mitigate these disadvantages. In other words, insurgent forces out vastly outdone in the traditional aspects of warfare, so they are forced to resort to unconventional modes of attack.

Early in his book, the Army and Vietnam, Krepinevich provides the broad game plan an insurgent force must follow to achieve final victory:

As developed by Mao in China and adapted by Giap in Vietnam, contemporary insurgency is a third world phenomenon comprising three phases: first, insurgent agitation and proselytization among the masses -- the phase of contention; second, overt violence, guerrilla operations, and the establishment of bases -- the equilibrium phase; and third, open warfare between insurgent and government forces designed to topple the existing regime -- the counteroffensive phase."

Primarily, this form of warfare consists of the formation of a political party, then attacks upon remote areas under governmental control to increase the insurgent's hold upon the public, and finally a full force is assembled that most closely resembles a conventional army. Without a doubt, the most important aspect of the insurgent movement is establishing at least passive support from the surrounding population. If the insurgents are able to illicit sympathy from a significant portion of the citizenry, they will find a base for operations and sanctuary; additionally, they will become more difficult for the occupational force to eradicate. Overall, this specific distinction between insurgence and terrorism comes about when the ideological or moral goals of violence are enhanced; insurgency can certainly take the form of terrorism; but if the motivations behind it appear just, then it becomes more complicated than merely asserting that those who attack civilians are terrorists.

Conceiving of terrorism in these terms results in the recognition that it is more easy to distinguish between utterly immoral terrorist actions and those that may possess higher levels of ethical backing: "The distinction between combatants and noncombatants and its relation to the notion of innocence are problematic, but to a lesser extent in the context of terrorism than in that of warfare." Thus,

It is well-known that the earliest and most dangerous form of terrorism is State Terrorism, which first appeared in the form of 'government terror,' which essentially entailed the use of violence by the organs of the State or by groups related to it; such use of violence is normally directed against the State's own population or against the population of some occupied territory, aiming largely at the extermination of the political opponents of the government and, in due course, at the suppression of the resistance put up by the people."

So, the ultimate goals of terrorist actions can vary widely in who they apply to and who seeks to carry them out. The state form of terrorism has taken an even more dangerous shape in recent times, as government aid has sometimes been given to individuals or insurgent groups looking to overthrow particular political regimes or social orders. "As a matter of fact, the financing of terrorist groups that are active within enemy countries, as well as the adoption of unconventional forms of war tends to be considered, as of late, a particularly attractive method of low-intensity warfare." Generally, this can take the form of resistance against dictatorships, national liberation movements, it can be generated in one country and directed at foreign governments, or it can entail violence with the goal of enforcing competing democratic political proposals. In a broad sense, terrorism by the state is used to destabilize those factions which threaten it.

Internationally, members of the United Nations are legally required to make such considerations when endeavoring to back possible insurgent or strictly terrorist movements. One of the founding documents of the United Nations was the Universal Doctrine of Human Rights whose first two articles state:

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

As with any organization that exists in this ever-changing world, the U.N. cannot act according to an unchanging set of rules." However, it is difficult to imagine that either of these two principles would ever be overwritten. Without a doubt, the philosophical foundations upon which these principles rest have come into question numerous times in history, and are still questioned by many individuals to this day. Justification for terrorism seems difficult to place within these guidelines for human behavior.

However Michael Ignatieff, in his book the Lesser Evil, seems to condemn terrorism from the individual perspective, while all but validating it from the position of the state aiming to perpetuate its foundations. He investigates the fundamental disparity between the principles of human rights and democracy, and the practical necessities of upholding them in the civilized world. Overall, Ignatieff asserts that, occasionally, circumstances arrive in which a nation is forced to choose between two undesirable options. He "maintains that necessity may require us to take actions in defense of democracy which will stray from democracy's own foundational commitments to dignity."

Thus, the framework for the Lesser Evil is unambiguously set. Governments should not make any pretence regarding the overlaying morality of their actions in response to serious threats, and neither should they conceal the means by which stability will be ensured from the general public. And of course, systems that infringe upon democracy must be undertaken only after all other approaches have been exhausted. Accordingly, the argument presented by Ignatieff seeks to debunk the idea that democracies are not built to formally outlaw suspensions of rights in times of need. Instead, Ignatieff makes the case that the points he develops must be adhered to if true democracy is to both survive and return following crises.

The trouble with this line of reasoning should be obvious: endorsing human rights infringements within the context of democracy sets an undue preference for the principles of democracy that might not be agreed upon uniformly. If governments are morally justified in stemming human rights in order to preserve themselves -- based upon the virtues of democracy -- then any moral cause or standpoint could also justify infringements upon human rights, and even terrorism. The numerous forms that terrorism has taken coupled with the continual transformation is essentially what raises serious doubts as to whether a workable definition can be formulated to help generate political policies. William Connolly expands on this premise:

Terrorism allows, as the state system is constituted, the state and the interstate system to protect the logic of sovereignty in the international sphere while veiling their inability to modify systemic conditions that generate violence by non-state agents; it also provides domestic constituencies with agents of evil to explain the vague experiences of danger, frustration, and ineffectiveness in taming global contingency."

Still, many people have applauded Bush's active policy against terrorism, and have supported his reasoning behind the invasion of Afghanistan. Charles Colson, having accepted the Bush approach to combating terrorism, sees no trouble in extending the implications of fighting terrorism in general to toppling political regimes that may harbor terrorists. He admits that traditional democratic warfare only justifies military action as a retaliatory measure; however, he does not believe that this tradition should hamper what he sees as necessity. "Historically... military force must be used only in response to an attack already underway. But in some cases, waiting for the other side to shoot first is tantamount to committing national suicide." He distinguishes between the morality of any preemptive actions taken by the United States and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by stating that civilians would not be killed by U.S. military operations. As a result, an invasion of Iraq by the United States could not be interpreted as a vastly more expensive version of terrorism.

To Colson, Iraq poses a very real and impending threat to the safety of the American people, and accordingly, must be quelled. He attempts to justify war in general by paying homage to St. Augustine's notions regarding Christians taking arms; however, he fails to mention that St. Augustine's words spurred the Crusades -- which brought about human suffering and moral depravity on an unprecedented scale. In short, Colson's case is weak, and his article borders upon outright propaganda.

Not everyone has been as enchanted by Bush's war on terrorism as Charles Colson. Jimmy Carter, in his speech to the Nobel committee in December of 2002 brought up a number of the problems he sees with the movement towards Iraq as an aspect of the war on terrorism. He quotes Ralph Bunche as having said, "To suggest that war can prevent war is a base play on words and a despicable form of warmongering." A more concrete objection is the continued unilateral actions of the United States under the Bush regime. He states, "If we accept the premise that the United Nations is the best avenue for maintenance of peace, then the carefully considered decisions of the United Nations Security Council must be enforced." This is a criticism of Bush's continued assertion that the United States needs to continue working through the United Nations, while simultaneously operating without its support. By doing this, he is drastically undermining the very methods for fighting terrorism that he has identified personally. So, even if someone were to embrace the idea that terrorism can be effectively fought in the way Bush suggests, they would be forced to conclude that his methods are counterproductive to that aim.

Carter's other most damning observation is that the manner by which Bush has decided to battle terrorism, though not promising peace, ensures warfare. He concludes, "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to work together in peace by killing each other's children." This is a powerful statement, and reflects the fallacy behind the idea that violence can promote peace. Violence, particularly that of a preemptive nature, only guarantees a cost of life that may otherwise have been absent.

Arundhati Roy offers a less veiled attack upon American foreign policy and the war on terrorism in War Talk. She begins her assault by first observing the revisionist history that the United States continually feeds its public and the rest of the world. She writes, "The Second World War, we're told, was a 'war for peace.' The atomic bomb was a 'weapon of peace.'" This manner of spinning the meaning of warfare and skewing the actions of the United States so they are always seen in the best possible light, is one of the driving forces that have allowed the United States to garner such an oppressive global empire. She argues that, contrary to mainstream analysis, while the United States is celebrating democracy as an ideal to unite the world, the actions taken by the American government routinely deconstruct what democracy is supposed to be. "The dismantling of democracy is proceeding with the speed and efficiency of a Structural Adjustment Program." Roy calls for immediate and overt action to be taken, not to combat terrorism, but to combat the expanding economic and moral abyss that is the United States. Her arguments are not altogether unheard of in the United States, but the fervency with which she states them grant her writing a unique look into Eastern attitudes regarding the West. "Killing people to save them from dictatorship or ideological corruption is, of course, an old U.S. government sport." Thus, Roy's central assessment is that modern U.S. wars are contrived in such a manner so that they are seen as comparable to the one truly just war in American's eyes: World War II. The war on terror, and the war in Iraq are painted by the government in this way to sell them most effectively to the public. Roy's writings are noteworthy because they convey an underlying hatred of the United States abroad; and they make it apparent that this hatred is not altogether unfounded.

The general concern over finding a precise definition of terrorism is both wrought with complications -- regarding perspective and variety -- and imperative to answer -- considering the current international climate. The common American conception of terrorism, as formed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is necessarily a flawed one. Those particular attacks stood as a demonstration of force, and lacked any easily definable aim; meanwhile, many other forms of terrorism possess very tangible and understandable moral aims. Additionally, contentions that democracies are justified in limiting human rights if it helps to ensure their survival, leaves the door open for state run or state sanctioned forms of terrorism to take root or become legitimized. Also, such moral perspectives devalue human rights in general, with respect to political regimes; this trend could also be very easily applied to terrorist motives and justifications.

One common technique states have used to combat terrorism is to devise a list of organizations they deem to be terrorist in nature, and thus, avoid the overlaying trouble of defining the term. If it is handled on a case by case basis, it is supposed, the contradictions inherent to the discussion can most accurately be avoided. Nevertheless, this tactic has run across problems just as severe as the formal outlines of the term. In short, the interests of the state with regard to their identified enemies tends to clearly arise. Brian Whitetaker provides some examples of what apparent double standards arise out of this approach in Great Britain: "The Kurdistan Workers Party -- active in Turkey -- is banned, but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish organizations active in Iraq. Among opposition groups, the Iranian People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC, which happens to be financed by the United States." To Whitetaker, clear preferences have been shown in manipulating Britain's definition of terrorism to fit specific political aims -- this is a perspective that is difficult to refute in light of his evidence.

The United States, also, seems to be plagued by this same preferential treatment of specific terrorist groups regarding its war in Afghanistan. Some critics have argued that the Bush administration has been making use of certain terrorist organizations to win over other terrorist organizations within the Afghanistan war. He cites a recent Human Rights Watch report, which states that numerous auxiliaries of the Northern Alliance killed tens of thousands of civilians, committed acts of rape, torture, and executions between 1992 and 2002. Accordingly, the United States' position behind cooperating with terrorists with the hope of capturing Osama bin Laden or other leaders of the Taliban is highly questionable with regard to their overall political stance regarding governments that act similarly. So, even nations like the United States, which have taken up the officially proclaimed task of ridding the world of terrorism, are forced to make judgments about terrorism concerning the validity of their practical and moral ends. "In the official definitions, even if one looks only at the 'technical' aspects of terrorism, i.e. ignores the motives of its perpetrators... The decision of what to include into a definition and what to leave aside is influenced strongly by the interests of the states."

Noting the drawbacks of case specific definitions of terrorism, many have argued that blanket definitions are the only truly usable mechanisms by which governments can make accurate judgments: "The problem with the definition of terrorism is not that it is loaded with pejorative connotations but that those judgments be proper and applied to all individuals and groups when appropriate." Kenneth Long asserts that the only workable conception of terrorism must, necessarily grow out of deliberate attacks upon non-combatants with the purpose of spreading fear. Yet, this approach too falls short regarding the concerns of the United States; the United States is interested in the preservation of property against terrorist threats as well as human lives. As a result:

The American definition does not mention spreading of terror at all, because that would exclude attacks against property. It is, after all, impossible to frighten inanimate objects. Among last year's [1999] attacks, 152 were directed against a pipeline in Colombia which is owned by manufacturing companies. Such attacks are of concern to the United States and so a definition is required which allows them to be counted."

Once again, the emergence of particular political interests significantly influences the broad definitions of terrorism the United States has attempted to employ. Consequently, a number of theorists have arrived at a fundamentally pessimistic opinion regarding the United States notion of terrorism. Richard Drake asserts, "As a rule, terrorism is the name we give to the violence of people we do not like or support; for the violence of people we do like or support, we find other names."

Despite these perspectives, international laws have centrally addressed terrorism. "Prior to 1945, a state could do anything it wanted to its citizens within its own territory, including murdering them, without any international accountability. Today, genocide, torture, enslavement, and other crimes, possibly extending to persecution and deportation, are illegal under customary international law even if they occur entirely within the territorial boundaries of a state and involve the state's own nationals." In short, the end of the Second World War also ended the era of terrorism as a universally sanctioned practice to be used against threats to national security.

However, it is important to recognize that terrorist acts -- such as those that occurred on September 11, 2002 -- qualify as grave breeches of the Geneva Convention. Accordingly, individuals involved in such acts are subject to prosecution under international law, with the existing possibility of punishment by death. Despite the apparent cut and dry nature of these laws -- with their regard to human rights -- they only people subject to these international rules are those who are citizens of the nations that ratified them. As a consequence terrorist factions, particularly those with no clear national associations, do not have the same rights that countries in the United Nations do. In fact, the only international laws pertaining to terrorism exist to formally prohibit the state from aiding or participating in terrorist actions. Within the Charter of the United Nations it states,

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State. Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force."

These writings help to form the foundation of the United Nations, and essentially, ensure cooperation among all nations involved in the agreement. Accordingly, if a terrorist act is committed on another country's soil, without the aid of the state, the state its self is can be held accountable. This is because the document goes on to say, "Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State." The choice of the word "tolerate" implies that it is every state's duty to eliminate any terrorist organizations within their borders -- even if their targets are outside of those borders. However, the way in which the word can be interpreted is left fairly vague.

Quite clearly, countries that are members of the United Nations are forbidden to have any associations with terrorism or terrorist groups, and the citizens of those nations may be subject to prosecution if they perform a terrorist act. States not recognized by the United Nations are not, necessarily, subject to the same rights or punishments. It is in these cases that terrorism or other human rights abuses are not strictly prohibited by international law. Nevertheless, human rights abuses of any variety could be looked upon by the international community as a violation of the Geneva Convention, and would warrant action:

U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), established in 1946, produced several committees and declarations on rights-related subjects such as racism, women's rights, apartheid, the treatment of prisoners, and slavery. In 1993, the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights was created to give the human-rights movement a sharper focus. Four years later the post was given to retiring president of Ireland, Mary Robinson."

Primarily, it was the acts of the holocaust that sounded the call for a multinational agreement regarding human rights. In more recent years, as various crimes against humanity have come to the surface the UNCHR has been charged with the task of bringing the suspected perpetrators to justice -- whether they be members of the U.N. Or not. In keeping with this general framework of action, terrorism is likely to be addressed in the same manner. Therefore, if terrorism were to be officially sanctioned and implemented by any individual State -- under its definitions -- it would likely call for action from the rest of the world. It should be noted, however, that the power of the United Nations to enforce human rights laws on the rest of the world is limited.

Even when headed by someone as well-known as Mary Robinson, the effectiveness of the UNCHR was limited. However, the Commission could put pressure on poor countries by threatening to withdraw U.N. aid unless certain human-rights violations were stopped. But the UNCHR could do little to persuade the governments of wealthy countries, such as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, to extend human rights to their citizens."

So, despite the obvious restrictions upon terrorism explicitly stated in international decrees; if powerful nations like the United States were to begin implementing terrorism as a preservation strategy, there is little the U.N. could do to stop them.

The added difficulty in internationally combating terrorism is that its fluid definition can routinely make implementation of international laws pertaining to it impossible to implement. "In 2002 a conference of foreign ministers from Islamic countries, meeting in Kuala Lumpur, decided to throw in the towel after it failed to define terrorism. The European Union has also failed to come up with a definition acceptable to all its members." In spite of the international community's inability to adequately define terrorism while attempting to enforce human rights laws, the United States has put forward their own particular definition of the term: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." This characterization of terrorism may seem straightforward, but as it applies to the United States, it is anything but.

President Bush, in his "war on terror," has made it seem as if the lines between the terrorist and the United States government are very distinct; however, historic events associated with the Iran Contras, the junta in El-Salvador, the Allende government in Chile, and the Taliban suggest that the ideological position of the United States cannot be conclusively on one side of the terrorist debate or the other. The U.S. government continues to back organizations that partake in deliberate violent acts towards civilians, and today, the overreaching principle asserted as our motivation is the elimination of such terrorist organizations. This is as clear a contradiction as a preemptive war waged to prevent war is: facilitating terrorism to fight terrorism only perpetuates terrorism.

Much of world history can be seen, not as a struggle for political or ideological gain, but as a struggle for natural resources. Oil, gas, water, timber, and minerals remain the fundamental reasons why nations often look to expand. This is the core argument put forward by Michael T. Klare in his book Resource Wars; and although we are often blinded by religious and political propaganda, what we ultimately fight for is economic stability. In this light, many of the United States' recent international policies supposedly aimed at the spreading of freedom and stability can more accurately be seen as the United States acting to tighten its grip upon the world's resources supply. Klare successfully sifts through the many conflicts of the modern age in order to fit them into this pattern of resource struggle. Ultimately, he paints a picture of a world that is continually bent upon securing natural resources and that the global depletion of these resources, coupled with the exponential grown in world population, indicates that humanity is on the brink of a conflict of a scale never before seen. Klare's book serves to systematically present a global problem that is more pressing than any political or religious dispute, and through which warfare has become the preferred method by which nations turn their back upon future concerns. The fact is that nearly all of the world's resources are limited in quantity, and that killing each other over them is an immoral and illogical course of action.

Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler claimed that war should be abolished because it exists as an avenue for governmental profit. He writes, "We must take the profit out of war." Jimmy Carter has argued, "The existence of war is incompatible with our basic needs as human beings: a stable home, food and health care, a life free from fear and persecution." Others point to the disingenuous nature of the United States media and government regarding warfare; thus making it appear minimal or even glorious in retrospect: "Thanks to the seductive charms of Hollywood and the irresistible appeal of America's mass media, all these year later, the world views the [Vietnam] war as an American story. Indochina provided the lush, tropical backdrop against which the United States played out its fantasies of violence." These arguments vary widely in their focus, thus reflecting the wide range of values, morals, and backgrounds that have drawn many individuals to the anti-war movement. Largely, this accounts for both the strength and the weakness of the anti-war movement: although these varying perspective have brought numerous people under a single banner, they lack the same unity of purpose that their sister movement -- the civil rights movement -- possessed. Consequently, the general aim is agreed upon, but the avenue by which it should be achieved is the subject of ongoing debate.

These concerns have come out of interpretations of the theory of war: "The essential questions that the theory addresses are much the same now as they always have been: When is going to war just? And how can war be waged justly? The first question is addressed by the jus ad bellum (justice to war) principles; the second question is addressed by the jus in bello (justice in war) principles." Just as there are numerous problems with addressing terrorism in particular, the notion of reconciling justice with war is equally daunting. "The former [justice] is about restoring moral order to the universe. The latter [war] is about securing the survival and achieving the partisan goals of a particular nation." Applying this disparity to Afghanistan means that if the United States is seeking justice, then the guilty parties in the September 11, 2001 attacks should be exclusively attacked, captured, and tried. However, if United States is seeking to win a war, then only military operations and objectives should be considered. Accordingly, the United States would be morally required to follow the traditional understanding of just wars: "The requirements for a just war are traditionally reduced to six: just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, proportionality between offence and response, reasonable chance of success and right intention."

So, "The principles of jus ad bellum require that a nation have just cause and right intention in declaring war, that the declaration be openly and properly declared, and that there be some reasonable expectation of winning the war." Many theorists and government officials have used this understanding of justice to suggest that nations are not only justified in retaliating against acts of aggression, but they are morally required to do so. Ayn Rand writes, "If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it." In truth, this is the only premise that can adequately validate retaliatory warfare, but it does so at the expense of the moral conception of the human being -- it is Machiavellian philosophy at its worst.

Essentially, Machiavelli threw out all previous notions regarding morality and ethical behavior. Instead, he adopted the premise that all people were prone to corruption and ambition; accordingly, they would employ any means at their disposal -- given the opportunity -- to achieve their goals. Although this was a useful position for Machiavelli to launch his arguments within the Prince -- in which he schools any ruler in the best ways to maintain power -- within the discussion of war and terrorism, it automatically devalues the idea that there is a distinction between the guilty and the innocent. Morally, if everyone is assumed to be equally depraved, then contending that terrorism is somehow more wrong than war, or even that war can be right, falls apart because civilians can no longer be considered innocents. Accordingly, pacifist societies are only doomed to fail if it is accepted that humanity is violent and immoral by nature. Therefore, revenge cannot be considered the moral course of action in international affairs, if war is ever considered to be anything more than a necessary evil.

The United Nations has issued a relatively clear standpoint with reference to the justifications for war. The U.N. Charter has established that the only form of legally acceptable war is one in which either individual or collective self-defense is the primary concern:

Article 2:

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action."

However, regarding the war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration appears to have manipulated the international conception of terrorist acts and terrorists themselves, in order to make military actions abroad more legitimate. Not only did the U.S. definition of terrorism make war a permissible response, but it diminished the human rights of those assumed to be terrorists with the hope of expatiating their capture and execution of justice.

A sign of error appeared... when President Bush issued an order establishing military tribunals to prosecute enemy terrorists who come into our custody. Civil libertarians have criticized the order as a deprivation of constitutional rights, such as an independent court, a jury trial, an appeal to independent judges, and a right to have full access to the evidence used to support a conviction."