A terrorist by any other name
Bush Administration abuses the label without regard for truth
This is not to say that terrorism and communism are mythical entities conjured up by the government. They are real enough. Yet the Bush administration has treated the former in such a way that the word has lost much meaning. Following Sept. 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft advised those who believe the liberties laid out in the Constitution ought to be protected that, "your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
The frequent reference of Bush administration officials to vague, undefined "terrorists" was a pretty good indication from the start that the U.S. government was most concerned with using terrorism as a propaganda device for silencing dissent and mobilizing for war--the latter being not a coincidentally very profitable enterprise for Bush and his family's friends.
Let us start by rectifying the Bush administration's neglect; what really is terrorism? The U.S. Army defines it as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in natureÉthrough intimidation, coercion or instilling fear."
That definition is reasonable enough. It certainly fits the hijackers of Sept. 11, who sought to promote their own fundamentalist agenda through the use of violence directed against civilians. But in reading the Army definition, one can see why the Bush administration and the (literally) flag-waving media have been so keen on avoiding critical inquiry into what constitutes terrorism; as linguist Noam Chomsky sarcastically notes, once we have a definition of terrorism, then measuring actions against the definition turns out "the wrong results." Indeed, an "I know it when I see it" approach has the redeeming value that most people don't expect or want their own government to be involved in: international terrorism. Why encourage them to look?
But al-Qaeda has no monopoly on terrorism. U.S. sanctions against Iraq over the past 12 years have killed hundreds of thousands of children. Their goal--the removal or containment of Saddam Hussein--is political, and their means are brutal: the denial of clean water to an entire nation of people. Were al-Qaeda to somehow poison the water supply for nine out of 10 Americans, it is hard to imagine that that would not be called an act of international terrorism. Some might even go so far as calling it biological warfare, which is how Pope John Paul II has described sanctions against Iraq. Why our government should be held to different standards is unclear.
The mainstream media and our government have colluded to confer not only upon the United States, but also upon American allies, immunity from being labeled "terrorist." For example, it may well be appropriate to call Yasir Arafat a "terrorist." But why is the same charge never leveled by the popular press at his counterpart, Ariel Sharon, who presided over the massacres of Sabra and Shatila?
In the three days of the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982, Phalange militiamen armed and supported by the IDF murdered over 2,000 Palestinians and Lebanese refugees. The victims of Sabra and Shatila numbered nearly four times the Israelis that have died at the hands of suicide bombers during the past two years. Nonetheless, the IDF is never referred to as "terrorist" by those who are only too eager to characterize the Palestinians as such.
Where does the double standard come from? Because the mainstream media is so unquestioning of official sources, those in power have a unique opportunity. They have the chance to set the very terms of the debate. An evenhanded definition of terrorism would yield an outcome where both American foreign policy and al-Qaeda are seen as terrorist.
The American government's conception of terrorism is, on the other hand, tautological: violence against America or Americans is "terrorism," and violence undertaken by America or its allies is always "pre-emptive self-defense," or more euphemistically, "intervention." Any argument to the contrary quickly causes one to be labeled un-American (I wonder if anyone is ever called un-French or un-Swedish) or worse.
Terrorism, as one American columnist wrote, is a strategy, not an opponent. But terrorism, if thought of as a strategy, is no longer an effective propaganda tool. Although many mocked President Bush for referring to "evildoers," in fact such a laughable characterization of official enemies is simply the logical end for his administration. For in order to use "terrorism" to stir up fear among Americans, Bush and his cohorts must paint the world in colors of black and white. Terrorism is pure evil, and "they" are just terrorists. Any acknowledgment of our own terrorism might tear that pretty little delusion asunder.
As the United States used the specter of communism to justify its invasion of Vietnam and its support of right wing dictatorships in Latin America during the Cold War, "terrorism" will now be used for the foreseeable future to justify imperialistic foreign policies. Wherever the United States wishes to pursue military action, it will undoubtedly manage to find "terrorist cells." When a once-supported dictator must be overthrown, al-Qaeda cells will suddenly be operating camps under his watch (with leaks of this news to loyal journalists within the mainstream as necessary).
When public support for invasion needs to be marshaled, terrorism alert systems will suddenly go to orange. And when people question their government vocally, they will be told by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Bush that they are aiding terrorists--the sort of attempt to instill fear for political gains which, incidentally, puts the current administration comfortably within the bounds of the U.S. Army definition of terrorists.