Military Bombing vs. Terrorism: Is There a Moral Difference?

Introduction

The central question of this paper raises complex moral, practical, and legal issues. On the one hand, there is a certain — if somewhat spurious — validity to the argument that justifies civilian deaths in a military action as "collateral damage." The bombing of civilians in an anti-terrorist operation is commonly viewed in a more morally and ethically favorable light than the actions of a terrorist or terrorist group that deliberately sets out to harm or terrorize innocent people by detonating a bomb in a crowded public space. However, this raises the question of whether there is any real moral difference between these two kinds of action.

On the other hand, many commentators and scholars argue that a certain moral justification can be ascribed to the so-called terrorist who plants a bomb in a crowded public area. This stance asserts that conditions such as political oppression and unjust forms of hegemony, or subtle terror exerted by dictatorial governments, justify these actions to a certain degree (Nagengast 1994, p. 120).

The difference between these two perceptions of moral justification rests largely on the intentionality of the acts in question — and the way that intention is perceived. Perception of intention is a crucial aspect of this debate and will be explored throughout this discussion.

This paper argues that both of the above positions are indefensible in moral terms, and that military bombing and the planting of terrorist bombs that injure, kill, and terrorize people are, in essence, one and the same thing. It will be argued that because certain actions are sanctioned by governments or the military does not make those actions less reprehensible than the actions of a single person or a small group. In essence, the killing and terrorization of civilians in any form is morally unacceptable.

A reading of the relevant literature on this topic has produced the following basic outline. Terrorism can be broadly understood as an attack intentionally directed at civilian targets, with external aims and intentions. Second, terrorism is by its very nature an immoral activity. It follows that those who condone or participate in acts of terror are acting immorally.

The Central Issue of Terrorism

The central issue underlying the question examined in this paper is the meaning of the term "terrorism." As Bonanate (1979) notes: "I cannot avoid stating that terrorism has not only been used by private groups, but also by states and governments; not just in domestic affairs, but also in international politics…" (p. 198). This observation indicates that the understanding and accusations of terrorism cannot be confined only to certain groups or individuals. Rather, terrorism should be seen as an act that is immoral regardless of who perpetrates it.

Therefore, before addressing the central argument, it is first necessary to determine what terrorism actually means and what constitutes an act of terror — whether that act is a military bombing or the work of an individual bomber.

As already noted, terrorism is by its very definition morally unacceptable, and those who perpetrate it are morally reprehensible. This is a point generally agreed upon by theorists. However, the definition of terrorism is the subject of considerable argument and debate. It is also important to recognize that the term is highly emotive and often carries significant interpretive bias. As Bonanate notes, "Very often it has been the object of insults and accusations rather than of analyses, giving rise to moralistic positions rather than scholarly discussions" (Bonanate 1979, p. 197).

Terrorism is commonly defined as "the premeditated use of violence by a nonstate group to obtain a political or social objective through fear or intimidation directed at a large audience" (Bergesen and Lizardo 2004, p. 38). This definition is generally acceptable — except for the word "nonstate," which the present paper argues against in the pages that follow.

A more comprehensive definition of terrorism is offered by Livingston, Kress, and Wanek (1978):

The use, or threat of use, of anxiety-inducing extranormal violence for political purposes by any individual or group, whether acting for or in opposition to established governmental authority, when such action is intended to influence the attitudes and behavior of a target group wider than the immediate victims and when, through the nationality or foreign ties of its perpetrators, its location, the nature of its institutional or human victims, or the mechanics of its resolution, its ramifications transcend national boundaries. (p. 2)

A central aspect that this definition obliquely indicates is the concept of relative deprivation. This refers to the comparisons that many groups and individuals make with conditions in other countries and regions — comparisons made possible by modern communication channels such as the Internet, and by the phenomenon of globalization (Cohn 2002). This also refers to perceived inequalities, for example between the economic and living conditions of First and Third World countries. These comparisons can serve as an instigating and motivating factor for terrorist actions. As Evans (1979) states:

To understand the relationship of this process of modernization to terrorist violence, the concept of "relative deprivation" must be mentioned… political violence is a consequence of a significant gap developing between the value expectations of a given group of people and the value capabilities of the group. (p. 11)

Therefore, some theorists take the stance that terrorism is a response to perceived relative deprivation and is often the only feasible form of resistance to oppression. This may explain terrorism, but it does not justify these actions in any moral sense.

There are many other variables that bear on the understanding of terrorism and terrorist acts. Primary among these is the connection between religious views and the justification of terrorist acts. This has been clearly evident in recent years in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among others, where acts of terror are justified by the overarching religious views and attitudes of the protagonists. "What has been called the new religious terrorism or holy terrorism reflects the increasing prevalence of religion in the ideology of terrorist organizations…" (Bergesen and Lizardo 2004, p. 42).

A central rationale for terrorist action is therefore that it is the only possible and effective form of defense against dominating and oppressive governments or organizations. This is one of the arguments used to explain modern terrorism and is also the rationale considered by some to be behind the attacks of September 11, 2001, against what critics call the "American Empire." This is also referred to as blowback theory (Bergesen and Lizardo 2004, p. 45), in which terrorist acts are seen as a response to what is perceived as American military and economic aggression in the world, particularly in the Middle East.

On the other hand, terrorism can also occur in the form of state or sub-state terrorism perpetrated by governments and other formal authorities. The justification for actions such as the organized bombing of civilians may be that it is a "necessary action" in the overall war on terror. However, this justification is open to the same moral criticism leveled at the individual radical terrorist or terrorist group. A number of studies have also condemned the reification of violence that is created by many government and social organizations (Nagengast 1994). This social acceptance of certain types of violence while condemning other forms is aligned with the concept of state terror. It also refers to the manipulation of public awareness and a certain moral blindness toward particular actions, such as the bombing of civilian targets (Nagengast 1994).

Conclusion

The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, morally speaking, state, sub-state, and individual or group actions that negatively affect innocent people are identical in character. The point made by Chomsky and many other thinkers and theorists is that to relegate terrorism only to certain groups or certain types of violence is to avoid the reality that many forms of terrorism are being practiced by developed nations and governments. In moral terms, they too are terrorists, even though they employ more formal and outwardly acceptable instruments of terror.

This leads naturally back to the central question under discussion. Military regimes and governments are not exempt from the moral repercussions of their actions. Military actions that intentionally target innocent people in the "fight against terror" are no less morally reprehensible than the action of a suicide bomber in a crowded marketplace. Both are morally unacceptable, despite any ostensible reason or claim of legitimacy.

Bibliography

Bergesen, A. J. and Lizardo, O. 2004, "Terrorism and the World-System," Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium.

Bonanate, L. 1979, "Some Unanticipated Consequences of Terrorism," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 197–211.

Burnham, J. 1974, "Antiterror Problems," National Review, Vol. 26.

Chomsky, N. "New War on Terror," viewed August 9, 2008, http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyterror.html

Cohn, M. 2002, "Understanding, Responding to and Preventing Terrorism," Arab Studies Quarterly.

Dershowitz, A. 2002, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, Melbourne, Scribe.

Evans, E. 1979, Calling a Truce to Terror: The American Response to International Terrorism, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.

Fouda, Y. and Fielding, N. (eds) 2003, Masterminds of Terror, Melbourne, Penguin.

Hamilton, L. C. and Hamilton, J. D. 1983, "Dynamics of Terrorism," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 39–54.

Johnson, C. A. 2000, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, New York, Metropolitan Books.

Livingston, M. H., Kress, L. B., and Wanek, M. G. (Eds.) 1978, International Terrorism in the Contemporary World, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.

Nagengast, C. 1994, "Violence, Terror, and the Crisis of the State," Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23, pp. 109–136.

Said, E. W. 1995, Orientalism, London, Penguin.

Sardar, Z. and Davies, M. W. 2002, Why Do People Hate America?, Cambridge, Icon.

Sinclair, A. 2003, An Anatomy of Terror: A History of Terrorism, London, Pan Macmillan.