To many, it seems self-evident that we have a definitional problem plaguing the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Without revision, the ambiguous language that accompanies the GWOT will lead America down a perilous path of frequent and costly interventions. While obtaining consensus on a working definition of "terrorist" will be arduous, a continued failure to do so will hamper America's ability to accurately identify and neutralize those who seek to challenge or destroy her influence.
The existing framework appears to be one in which policy makers apply the word "terrorist" only in accordance with national interests, a tendency that if continued will further undermine U.S. credibility in the world community. Given the current levels of distrust and frustration between the United States and the international community, America's reputation cannot weather further strain. For the United States to emerge from this tumultuous era intact and prosperous, it must reach, with international approval, a working definition of "terrorist" that will guide the GWOT in an equitable fashion consistent with American values.
Scholars and policy-makers have long debated the definitional issues surrounding terrorism. As the old saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." While this discourse has created abundant literature on the question, it has yielded little in the way of resolution or consensus. The impediment in this debate is, of course, that it draws primarily on the subjective value systems of those involved. The various moral codes and social outlooks we assume during development have critical bearing on our interpretations of sensitive issues like terrorism.
For some, the late Sheik Yassin (the senior spiritual adviser to Hamas) was a morally reprehensible terrorist. For others, he was a righteous beacon of resistance fighting against Israeli occupation. At the same time, those who identify Yassin as a terrorist might not use the word to describe Moshi Levinger (an infamous Israeli settler in the West Bank city of Hebron whose status and actions meet the standard definition of 'terrorist.') Unfortunately for lawmakers, conclusions such as the ones above are influenced by subjective personal values and therefore cannot be proved or disproved in an objective fashion.
While personal uncertainty on this issue may not have dire implications, U.S. leadership in the GWOT requires consistency and certainty in our definition of what constitutes a "terrorist." If the United States is to retain any credibility, it must establish objective criteria that define a "terrorist" and adhere to such criteria in all dealings. The American prosecution of the GWOT in the Iraqi theater has severely damaged vital alliances and undermined the Bush administration's credibility both at home and abroad. In light of the current climate, the United States must not rely on the GWOT and its ambiguous rubric to justify the pursuit of controversial national-interest objectives. The criteria employed to determine a "terrorist" must be equitably applied in accordance with the rule of law rather than national interests.
My use of the word "equitable" is to suggest consistency; that a "terrorist" in Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan must also be labeled as such in Venezuela or Iran. As of today, those who seek to topple or challenge repressive and inhumane regimes in the two former states are "terrorists," while those who pursue identical objectives against similar systems in the latter are not. A cursory review of the domestic conflicts in these countries would indicate that those involved in subversive action seek similar ends. What separates the "terrorists" from the "freedom fighters" in these cases are not differences in tactical approaches or ideologies, but rather the preservation or pursuit of American energy and security interests.
A coup in Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, regardless of whether it was prompted by genuine desires for "freedom" and "liberty," would be devastating to American energy requirements and would therefore be unacceptable. Those in Saudi Arabia who agitate for such an occurrence are "terrorists" to be kept at bay by Saudi authorities using an expansive arsenal annually refurbished by the American government. Similar coups, using identical tactics in countries such as Iran or Venezuela, where the United States seeks friendly new leadership that will facilitate American energy and security objectives, are actively encouraged by policy-makers and hailed as victories against tyranny and oppression. These types of glaring manipulations and inconsistencies will further undermine U.S. credibility and continue to drive her already indignant allies further away.
With regards to the pursuit of liberty, the United States had an admirable birth. Our venerable forefathers fought courageously to expunge exploitive, tyrannical rule from the colonies. They sought an end to foreign dominance and devised a system in which the governed felt that their interests were guarded by elected compatriots. Had Britain been leading the GWOT under its current standards during the late 18th century, our founding fathers would have been the Kingdom's most wanted "terrorists." Does that sound right? Could it be that King George viewed our Minutemen in a similar light as our current leadership views the Mahdi Army? Let us consider such things when assessing the value and righteousness of our costly endeavors abroad.
While I harbor serious reservations as to whether the GWOT can ever be won, I do believe that for the United States to emerge from this endeavor intact, it must not use the ambiguous language of the war to justify pursuit of its controversial national-interest objectives. The Bush administration's miscalculations in Iraq have severely damaged American credibility abroad, and our primary objective must be to restore these tattered alliances. This goal will be unattainable if the administration continues down a path of disingenuous manipulation and inconsistency. America needs all the friends it can get, and such relationships can only be acquired through policies of evenhandedness and honesty.
Peter K. Muller is a senior in the School of International Service.
