Moral Clarity about Terrorism

Nicholas Kristof examines some current thinking around terrorism and how new tools and methods of warfare have outraged their targets and enemies. The central message from many academics is that this is not a 'black and white' issue with universal clarity. When is one person's description or a terrorist another's definition of a freedom fighter? When is a cause so important that any method of attack or tool of war is acceptable in the eyes of the perpetrator and sympathizers?. Though not mentioned, when is a guerilla a terrorist? When does unconventional warfare rise to the level of terrorism?

Labeling a person or group as terrorist rallies the victims of such acts and their culture, society and leadership to oppose terrorists. Hatred is kindled and widespread fear in the populace, a key objective of terrorists, is created.

President Bush uses the term 'moral clarity' to describe his and America's view of the terrorism we have experienced at the hands of the Arab perpetrators. Kristof summarizes the arguments of others who say that 'moral clarity ' is inappropriate rhetoric.

Is it fair to present the war on terrorism as a parable of good (us) versus evil (them)? Grenville Byford reflected the skeptics' view in a Foreign Affairs essay, arguing that moral clarity is more apparent than real and that "the sooner the rhetoric is retired the better." Highly nuanced intellectuals tend to poke three kinds of holes in moral clarity:

1. Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. President Reagan declared the African National Congress a terrorist group not long before its leader, Nelson Mandela, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile he described Jonas Savimbi, who everybody else thought of as a terrorist, as Angola's Abraham Lincoln. Oops. And speaking of our national heroes, what about our radical forebears in the American Revolution who burned the homes of British loyalists? Were they terrorists?

2. Wiping out terrorists is sometimes unhelpful. Even if we could agree on what constitutes terrorism, it's often not obvious what we should do about it. Pakistan has done more than Iraq to support terrorism (in Kashmir), but instead of invading Pakistan, Mr. Bush has quite sensibly sent aid — for bolstering President Pervez Musharraf is the best hope for ending the violence. Circumstances vary, so sometimes we kill those engaged in terrorism, and sometimes we invite them for state visits.

3. In crude military terms, terrorism often works. New methods of killing people initially provoke outrage but eventually are often accepted. Henry V used longbows at Agincourt, outraging the French. British redcoats marching in neat columns were appalled by sneaky Yankees hiding behind trees. After Guernica, aerial bombing was condemned as barbaric, and in World War II the West condemned Germany's V-1 and V-2 missiles as terror weapons.

Using the definition of terrorism "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons," I believe America is morally clear in our description and response to Al Queda and allied groups. Targeted bombings, airliners flown into buildings, ships blown up, and other such acts are immoral in a civilized world, just as the destruction of property by groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and Earth First! is a terrorst act. In a civilized world, there some activity and behavior is not merely illegal, it is off-limits.

The debate of right vs. wrong, morality vs immorality, legal vs, illegal will continue. Nevertheless, America must not muddle along in a debate that creates paralysis. President Bush is right to consistently define and describe terrorism with moral clarity and to take all actions necessary to thwart terrorists who would kill and destroy our people and our security. He is also correct to denounce and oppose the Palestinian suicide bombers and organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists. Mr. Bush is careful, however, not to label Iraq and Saddam Hussein as terrorist, instead opting for different descriptors for the threat they pose, not to America or Americans directly, but to "the stability of the region" and to their "neighbors." If he had convincing evidence of direct links to Al Queda, I'm sure he would label Iraq differently. Perhaps such evidence does exist and it's a matter of when to release it.