The Ultimate Guide to Understanding Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Terrorism and Counterterrorism Explained

By Dr. Jeffrey C. Fox

This book is for anyone who is interested in learning about terrorism in all its forms. For over four decades I have studied terrorism, trained to deal with it, dealt with it, and taught it as an academic discipline. Over these decades I have seen an already complicated topic become even more difficult to understand. The field of study has grown as the world has gotten smaller. Ask anyone what terrorism is and you will get a myriad of answers. Even in academia the topic has become more convoluted. As with crime, there are many theories espoused as to why one commits terrorism and why terrorism exists. It appears to me that many academics, researchers, policymakers, authors, and journalists in general view this topic with a tainted lens based on their own world view. Some act as apologists for terrorists while often doing so in a subtle manner. Some try to expand the definition and concept well beyond the scope that it should be found. I have students who do this all the time. We seem to be living in an emotion driven society instead of a fact driven one. A relatively new trend is to use the word extremist as a synonym for terrorist. There are several problems with this. First, this creates a net widening effect which lumps those who we disagree with in that net. Second, who gets to decide who or what is extreme? Third, and finally, it waters down and muddies the study of “terrorism”. This does not mean that an extremist might not become a terrorist.

Having pointed out the minefield terrorism can be my goal is to offer an academically sound real-world fact-based explanation on terrorism. Terrorism can be a politically charged topic. I ask that as you read this book you check what is written, digest it, and make your own decisions on what you have read. It is highly likely some of your thinking will be challenged. When I began to teach homeland security which includes terrorism, I made a promise to myself that I would never be politically correct. Political correctness is what some terrorists rely on and is one of our worse habits.

We will cover several overarching themes. We will look at what terrorism is and is not. We will explore the historical roots of terrorism. We will discuss the causes of terrorism as well as terrorist typologies. Next, we will examine domestic terrorism and international and ethnic terrorism. Then we will dive into religion and terrorism and spend time looking at Islamic terrorism and Jihad. We will examine asymmetric warfare including terrorists’ tactics and weapons of choice. We will discuss terrorist financing an explore counterterrorism.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jul 14, 2021
• ISBN: 9781664183919

Dr. Jeffrey C. Fox

n/a

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by Dr. Jeffrey C. Fox.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 07/14/2021

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

831295

CONTENTS

Preface

Dedication

Chapter 1What Is Terrorism?

Chapter 2Historical Roots of Terrorism

Chapter 3Causes of Terrorism

Chapter 4Terrorist Typologies

Chapter 5Domestic Terrorism

Chapter 6International and Ethnic Terrorism

Chapter 7Religion and Terrorism

Chapter 8Islamic Terrorism and Jihad

Chapter 9Asymmetric Warfare: Terrorists Tactics and Weapons of Choice

Chapter 10Terrorist Financing

Chapter 11Counterterrorism

References

Other Books by Dr. Fox

About the Author

Preface

We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists.

We invite terrorism by ignoring them.

—George W. Bush

This book is for anyone interested in learning about terrorism in all its forms. For over four decades I have studied terrorism, trained to deal with it, dealt with it, and taught it as an academic discipline. Over these decades, I have seen an already-complicated topic become even more difficult to understand. The field of study has grown as the world has gotten smaller. Ask anyone what terrorism is, and you will get a myriad of answers. Even in academia, the topic has become more convoluted. As with crime, there are many theories espoused as to why one commits terrorism and why terrorism exists. It appears to me that many academics, researchers, policymakers, authors, and journalists, in general, view this topic with a tainted lens based on their worldview. Some act as apologists for terrorists while often doing so subtly. Some try to expand the definition and concept well beyond the scope that it should be found. I have students who do this all the time. We seem to be living in an emotion-driven society instead of a fact-driven one. A relatively new trend is to use the word extremist as a synonym for terrorist. There are several problems with this. First, this creates a net-widening effect that lumps those who we disagree with in that net. Second, who gets to decide who or what is extreme? Third, and finally, it waters down and muddies the study of terrorism. This does not mean that an extremist might not become a terrorist.

Having pointed out the minefield terrorism can be my goal is to offer an academically sound real-world fact-based explanation on terrorism. Terrorism can be a politically charged topic. I ask that as you read this book you check what is written, digest it, and make your decisions on what you have read. It is highly likely some of your thinking will be challenged. When I began to teach homeland security, which includes terrorism, I made a promise to myself that I would never be politically correct. Political correctness is what some terrorists rely on and is one of our worse habits.

We will cover several overarching themes. We will look at what terrorism is and is not. We will explore the historical roots of terrorism. We will discuss the causes of terrorism as well as terrorist typologies. Next, we will examine domestic terrorism and international and ethnic terrorism. Then we will dive into religion and terrorism and spend time looking at Islamic terrorism and jihad. We will examine asymmetric warfare including terrorists’ tactics and weapons of choice. We will discuss terrorist financing and explore counterterrorism.

Dedication

Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep go through life refusing to see evil. The wolves are the evil preying on the sheep. But the sheepdogs? They protect the sheep. They fight evil.

—LTC Dave Grossman, retired

To all the sheep dogs, past, present, and future.

Chapter 1

What Is Terrorism?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

—Sun Tzu, n.d.

Distinctions are easier to make than definitions. White’s (2003) approach is illustrative of this, placing terrorism along a continuum of conflict where related behaviors can be sorted out. This approach sees terrorism as between rioting and guerilla warfare. There is no one definition of terrorism. In fact, the word might be impossible to define because it is intangible and changes according to historical, ideological, and geographical contexts. There is no universal definition of terrorism (Long, n.d.). In the United States alone, we have approximately one hundred definitions. The bigger question is, when does one become a terrorist (Hoffman, 2017; Martin, 2019; Nacos, 2016; Simonsen & Spindlove, 2017; White, 2003, 2016)?

White (2003) states that a common definition of terrorism is elusive. This elusiveness is caused by many reasons. It is critical that one understands several basic core concepts involving terrorism. Terrorism will always be examined from both a social and historical context. How terrorism is viewed and defined will depend greatly on the social and historical variables being considered and by whom they are considered. Terrorism, as we know it, currently originated during the French Revolution. However, it can be argued that terrorism has been around in one form or another since early biblical times. During the 1800s and early 1900s, terrorist groups included labor organizations, nationalist groups fighting foreign powers, anarchists, and ultranationalist political organizations. By the end of World War II, this meaning had changed.

This context includes basic frameworks wherein terrorism is created, found, and thrives. The contextual paradigms considered in this chapter include how history, conflict, political power, repression, media, crime, religion, and the specific forms of terrorism interact. The meaning of terrorism has changed with time and is often defined in a historical context. It was during the French Revolution where modern terrorism derived its meaning. Labor groups, anarchists, nationalists’ groups revolting against foreign powers, and ultranationalists were considered the primary perpetrators of terrorism. With the onslaught of World War II, the context of terrorism shifted. Hate groups took the forefront in the United States. However, right after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan emerged as a terror group that is still in existence today. Subnational warfare involving terrorism was prevalent internationally. Rogue regimes sponsored terrorism. As the new millennium approached, the context and definition of terrorism changed again. Currently, terrorism often means large groups, which are not part of the formal state. Religious fanatics and some environmental groups make up a good portion of terrorist groups (White, 2003, 2016). Some researchers have argued that once approximately 25 percent of a population is involved in terrorism, it is no longer terrorism but has turned into a revolution. The precise terminology and math here can be argued, but the premise that of moving from terrorism to revolution has merit. Fidel Castro in Cuba might be the best example of this. It is important to note that the terrorist is only the tip of the spear. The person who actively carries out the act of terrorism is the tip of the spear, but that spear has a shaft that helps the overall action (Bjelopera, 2017; Cinar, 2009; Cohon, 2006; Cohen, 1989; Couto, 2010; Horganm, 2006; Kruglanski & Fishman, 2009; Miller & Landau, 2005; Miller, 2019; Morag, 2015; Recih, 1998; Schartz et al, 2009; Sidman, 2003; Smelser & Mitchell, 2002).

When terrorism is related to war, the meaning changes depending on how the war is viewed. Those who employ terror tactics will be viewed as heroes by their friends and allies and terrorists by their foes and enemy. Guerrilla warfare uses terrorist tactics or vice versa. However, as we will see, guerrilla warfare and terrorism are different forms of force. Along these lines, political power comes into play. Those in power define terrorism. Some think that political repression is terrorism itself. Of course, these messages and meanings must be disseminated by some means. This is where the media plays a role (White, 2003).

White (2003) discusses the correlation between terrorism and crime. Criminals commit criminal acts. Terrorists commit criminal acts for political reasons. Criminals commit criminal acts for themselves. Terrorism is defined within the context of time, personal, and societal views. We will examine the difference between a terrorist and a criminal in more detail later.

There are many definitions of terrorism. Again, terrorism and its definitions are in the eye of the beholder. Definitions may fall within a legal context or a sociological or criminological context. The entire issue involving definitions is blurred, complex, and most often politically charged. Defining terrorism can almost be viewed like the adage regarding pornography. The saying is, I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it. Revolutionary violence should not be mistaken with terrorism. However, terrorism activity might lead to revolution in some cases, or at least, that is the hope for some. Some academics argue that terrorism should be described in relation to governmental repression. One solution is to merge the definitions. The FBI offers a good legal and working definition. The FBI definition says 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. Beyond definitions, we must consider typologies (White, 2003).

Typologies do not solve the problem of defining terrorism. Likewise, there are many typologies of terrorism. Typologies of terrorism must be examined just as the definitions within the specific social, historical, and political settings in which it occurs and is analyzed. Just as with definition, typologies can be skewed or affected by the biases of the researcher. Before analyzing typologies, it must be understood that humans live in a continuous state of conflict. White (2003) offers an excellent spectrum of conflict. The spectrum runs from a state of nature wherein there are no rules along the spectrum of norms, mores, and taboos; civil law; criminal law; crime; organized crime; disorders and riots; terrorism; guerrilla war; low-level war; limited conventional war; unlimited conventional war; selective war; and mass destruction and ending again in a state of nature with no rules. As can be seen, terrorism has a place on this continuum (White, 2003). From this basic typology, one can move to a tactical typology. We will dive deeper into typologies later.

The level of terrorist activity is proportional to the size of the group. White (2003) offers a model illustrating the tactical typology of terrorism. At the low end, one will find criminal activity from individuals that are psychological; and crime-driven gangs, organized crime, and narcotic and drug influence can be found here. Here, the response comes from the police. Moving up the level, the group shifts to political-type activity. The group is small and may or may not have foreign support. The group size may grow large and again may or may not have foreign support. At the other end of the spectrum, the response shifts from the police to the military. With the tactical typology model comes the ability for force multipliers (White, 2003, 2016).

Force multipliers are created using technology. Force multipliers can give the appearance or actual power for terrorists to act at a higher level of force. Technology can be a force multiplier in that weapons enhancements allow a small unit to generate greater destruction either through technology or to technology. Cyberterrorism and weapons of mass-destruction capabilities are the two primary examples of this. Globalization in technology, economy, and transportation, which links the world closer together, allows for transnational support. Immediate and constant news coverage, which often comes from a sensationalistic approach, is a multiplier. Finally, religion by way of fanaticism empowers the terrorist through the lack of social norms and the appeal to a higher power (Hoffman, 2017; Martin, 2019; Nacos, 2016; Simonsen & Spindlove, 2017; White, 2003, 2016).

Terrorism is described and viewed from a social and political context. One single definition of terrorism does not and probably will not exist that will satisfactorily explain the many and varied levels of terrorism along with its causes and effects. Terrorism is defined, viewed, and analyzed from and by history, conflict, political power, political repression, media, crime, and its typologies. Terrorism cannot be defined simply and therefore should be looked upon from a tactical perspective. There are several basic forms of terrorism, which include arson, assault, bombing, hijacking, kidnapping, hostage taking, and disruption of services. Lastly, force multipliers play a critical role to the success of terrorists’ actions (White, 2003, 2016). Executions and ruthless beheadings, along with all other forms of torture, should be added to the basic forms of terrorism. White (2003) is both comprehensive and correct in his analysis regarding the mutating forces of terrorism. However, terrorism cannot and should never be viewed from a cold, dispassionate analytical perspective alone. Some could take the ideas examined in this chapter and defend what has and is taking place in the past several decades involving terrorist activities worldwide. The fact is some have taken the idea of warfare on the cheap and government repression and tried to defend and make sense of senseless attacks on innocent people. This is how terrorists view and defend their actions. Yet there are those who are not terrorists and purport to be antiterrorist who still reduce or minimize the evil deeds carried out in the name of freedom fighters, crusaders, or repressed people (Hoffman, 2017; Martin, 2019; Nacos, 2016; Simonsen & Spindlove, 2017; White, 2003, 2016).

The academic field of terrorism studies has grown substantially over the last several decades. At least two scholarly journals focus exclusively on the subject: Terrorism and Political Violence and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. More and better empirical studies have been conducted. Certain areas of interest are of growing importance, such as the role of the media in the spectacle of terrorism, whether 9/11 produced a paradigm shift in counterterrorism, and whether terrorism is nothing new. There is a need to be cautious in tossing the terrorist label around, as most experts suggest it is better to define terrorism by nature of the act rather than by identity or sociodemographics of the perpetrators. What establishes if an act is terrorism is based purely on the motive behind the act? Put another way, one could view terrorism purely as a tactic in and of itself. We will see that there is a use of force scale or continuum. Terrorism falls on this scale or continuum. Having said this, terrorism is never justified within the rules of war (Hoffman, 2017; Martin, 2019; Nacos, 2016; Simonsen & Spindlove, 2017; White, 2003, 2016).

The most frequently used terms, in rank order, are as follows in bullet points below, although it should be admitted that none of these are the fundamentum divisionis of the definition. All definitions contain two (2) elements: a situating element and a specifying element. The situating element simply situates the new concept among known concepts. Examples include grouping terrorism with the known concepts of violence or threat. Specifying elements (the fundamentum divisionis) are the kinds of things in which the definer says, for example, unpredictability or innocence (of victims) are the quintessential or main features.

✓ Terrorism is political in scope. Political in scope means that terrorist reasoning is political in the Lasswellian sense that all things political involve thinking about who gets what, when, and how (situating element).

✓ It is a method, not an end in itself or something that someone normally commits to for identity purposes, as with an ideology or belief system (situating element).

✓ It is intended to induce psychological trauma on a population, the psychological aspect deriving primarily from the randomness or symbolic qualities of the act that exploit weaknesses in the existing order, symbolic meaning that terrorists are usually only interested in demonstrating, not acquiring useful objects (situating element).

✓ The violence is meant to be coercive, which means the violence is intended to disorient and mobilize the targets of attention to take unwanted action in a systematic way and in this way is like extortion (situating element).

✓ It deliberately targets noncombatants. The slaughter of defenseless, nonresisting victims is what gives terrorism its basic strength; and although this is ranked last in citation counts, it is perhaps the main defining feature (specifying element) for some time according to many experts (Hoffman, 2017; Martin, 2019; Nacos, 2016; Simonsen & Spindlove, 2017; White, 2003, 2016).

Definitions of Terrorism

Some forms of it are indistinguishable from crime, revolution, war, and fear. Other forms of it are easily distinguishable. There is no universal definition of terrorism (Long, n.d.). Do not worry if you are also confused on the whole good-bad thing. Philosophers have debated it for years without agreement on the moral consistency of intent and action. There are experts in criminal justice who say the act, not the motivation, should define terrorism; and then there are experts who say the motivation, not the act, should define terrorism (Hoffman, 1999). As already pointed out, this is my stance. One of the implications of this motive-action dichotomy involves the lawlessness of terrorism. Take, for example, this definition of terrorism as the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change where freedom fighters could easily be included under that definition (as opposed to the FBI definition, which puts the word unlawful upfront). Those who write encyclopedias of terrorism state that an adequate working definition ought to have three parts: method, target, and purpose. Others declare an adequate understanding ought to have four parts: targets, weapons, tools, and facilitating conditions. Few academic suggestions find their way into official definitions. Note also that different branches of government use different definitions, as follows:

Official Definitions of Terrorism

State Department definition, title 22 of the U.S. Code, chapter 38, section 2656f(d): premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

FBI definition: 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.

Defense Department definition: the calculated use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

United Nations definition: any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act (article 2(b) of International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, May 5, 2004).

The State and Defense Departments conceive of terrorism as war—"the premeditated or the calculated use of violence (see Department of Defense Directive 2000.12, DoD Antiterrorism/Force Protection [AT/FP] Program, April 1999). On the other hand, the Justice Department conceives of terrorism as a crime: the unlawful use of force or violence (see Organization of the Department of Justice, Code of Federal Regulations, title 28, Judicial Administration, 2001). The State Department definition is the one used to officially count terrorism, and it is important to note that a significant terrorist event is one that meets the requirements of being politically motivated and intended to influence an audience. This means that an official" act of terrorism must be directed toward a symbolic target that is important to the political interests of a government somewhere. By contrast, the FBI definition (which is most often used in law enforcement training because it treats terrorism as a crime) would classify random acts of violence and acts for personal gain as terrorism.

Federal laws on terrorism offenses are defined in 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B. There are approximately twenty-two different statutes within 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B that define terrorism offenses, impose penalties, or otherwise establish federal rules and regulations related to terrorism.

• 18 U.S. Code section 2331—Definitions

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332—Criminal penalties

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332a—Use of weapons of mass destruction

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332b—Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332d—Financial transactions

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332e—Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332f—Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems, and infrastructure facilities

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332g—Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332h—Radiological dispersal devices

• 18 U.S. Code section 2332i—Acts of nuclear terrorism

• 18 U.S. Code section 2333—Civil remedies

• 18 U.S. Code section 2334—Jurisdiction and venue

• 18 U.S. Code section 2335—Limitation of actions

• 18 U.S. Code section 2336—Other limitations

• 18 U.S. Code section 2337—Suits against government officials

• 18 U.S. Code section 2338—Exclusive federal jurisdiction

• 18 U.S. Code section 2339—Harboring or concealing terrorists

• 18 U.S. Code section 2339A—Providing material support to terrorists

• 18 U.S. Code section 2339B—Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

• 18 U.S. Code section 2339C—Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

• 18 U.S. Code section 2339D—Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization

18 U.S. Code § 2331—Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and I occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2) the term "national of the U.S." has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of—

(A) declared war;

(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; I(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.; and

(6) the term military force does not include any person that—

(A) has been designated as a—

(i) foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or

(ii) specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or

(B) has been determined by the court to not be a military force. (Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376; Pub. L. 115–253, § 2(a), Oct. 3, 2018, 132 Stat. 3183.)

As we have seen, there are over a hundred definitions of what terrorism is in the United States alone. The definition that matters in the end is the legal definition found above.

Simonsen and Spindlove (2017) do a good job of comparing the different constructs and note that the state approach emphasizes motives, the DOD approach emphasizes goals, and the FBI approach emphasizes methods. Combining the three would produce some overly complex definition like Terrorism is the clandestine, criminal resort to violence or threat of violence on the part of a group toward innocent bystanders that seeks to accomplish some purpose against some recognized authority. The purpose is usually political, and the target is usually civilian. One attempts to analyze the frequency of different emphases in at least 109 definitions of terrorism and finds that, in rank order, most definitions emphasize goals (political), purposes (fear), targets (victim reactions), and methods (combat strategy or tactic). Only a small number of definitions emphasize the publicity aspect, covert nature, or criminal character of terrorism. It is undoubtedly that case that political motivation ranks as the leading element in most definitions of terrorism. Some years ago, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1976) suggested calling any crime that is politically motivated an act of terrorism. However, the problem with making something political into criminal goes beyond motivation (endless debates can be had over the presence or absence of instrumental or expressive motives in terrorism) as well as methods (Bjelopera, 2017; Cinar, 2009; Cohon, 2006; Cohen, 1989; Couto, 2010; Horganm, 2006; Kruglanski & Fishman, 2009; Miller & Landau, 2005; Miller, 2019; Morag, 2015; Recih, 1998; Schartz et al, 2009; Sidman, 2003; Smelser & Mitchell, 2002).

The idea of terrorism as crime rests upon having an adequate legal framework (which does not exist) as well as an understanding of the costs or impact of terrorism. Yet that does not stop agencies from trying. The FBI, for example, guided by its definition, tends to be best positioned to go after extremism and fanaticism (the root causes of terrorism). However, it is handicapped or constrained by the need to protect civil liberties and rights. The Patriot Act helps law enforcement out a bit but smacks of a centralized government solution. We must continually measure, check, and weigh freedom and liberty against our safety and security. The Department of State, guided by its definition, is well positioned to thwart terrorism diplomatically and symbolically but is burdened with the need to designate certain groups and entities as terrorists or not (see State Department’s website). The Department of Homeland Security basically favors a Defense Department definition, even though the military is severely limited by what they can do legally and domestically. For one thing, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) prohibits the use of soldiers to enforce criminal laws against American citizens. Other executive orders and presidential directives (some secret, some not) similarly limit the use of military intelligence, such as Executive Order 12333 and PDD 39 (Presidential Decision Directive 39: U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism). The thing that most clearly distinguishes military from law enforcement action is that the military has mostly a free hand at preemption (preemptive first strike) while often the best that the criminal justice system can do is harass and thwart (given exclusionary rule and entrapment constraints). Differences in definitions of terrorism matter, and they matter to the agencies whose job it is to protect us.

Jonathan White’s Continuum of Conflict

• Folkway violation

• Civil law tort

• Crime

• Organized crime

• Riot

• Terrorism

• Guerrilla war

• Low-Level war

• Total war

• Mass destruction

I would add covert or clandestine operations next to guerilla war.

Gus Martin (2019) also approaches the problem by making distinctions. He accepts the inevitability of political motivation as a common element of most definitions and then distinguishes between the elements of method (force) and target, as follows:

Gus Martin’s Typology of Conflict

• Indiscriminate force, combatant target (total war)

• Discriminate force, combatant target (limited war)

• Indiscriminate force, noncombatant target (unrestricted terrorism)

• Discriminate force, noncombatant target (restricted terrorism)

Other terms exist that one might encounter in studying terrorism. What is left out from the list would be terms such as liberationists, pirates, resisters, propagandists, and mercenaries. These may be terms that have some special meaning, but the process quickly gets redundant after a while. Redundancy is evident in the phrase freedom fighter because no side to any clash fights for anything but freedom. As an aside, it is often argued that parts of the American Revolution, like the Boston Tea Party, involved terrorist acts and that this illustrates one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. However, this argument misses the fact that the groundwork for the American Revolution was already underway in a variety of directions; and legitimate freedom fighting always contains advance warning, follows a warrior code, obeys the rules of war, prohibits certain kinds of weapons, does not use outlaw tactics, and takes steps to select targets that harm the least number of innocents (Hoffman, 2017; Martin, 2019; Nacos, 2016; Simonsen & Spindlove, 2017; White, 2003, 2016).

Critiques of definitions are also easier than trying to tackle the definitional problem. An illustrative is dissecting terrorism. Criticizing dictionary definitions of terror and, most certainly, some of the worst definitions of terrorism confuses it with fear, fright, alarm, being shocked, or scared. It is also easily distinguishable from acts of civil disobedience, marches, demonstrations, leafleting, picketing, protesting, and rioting. It is less distinguishable from guerilla warfare or revolutionary wars (which can be restricted or unrestricted, as Martin calls it). In fact, terrorism often escalates into war, a phenomenon that experts call the Sarajevo effect (Lacquer, 1999), in which the 1914 assassination