Terrorism

[chicot]

Yes. 

 

And I know that was a set-up, to get me to make what you perceive to be a value judgement about the Iraqi insurgency.  So before you do, note that in my discussion of terrorism so far I've taken great pains to be value-neutral; most of my disagreement with JSP's definition, if you'll read back, were about the value judgements he made.  So that "yes", above, is entirely judgement free.  The tactic of using IEDs against occupying forces simply is what it is.

782755[/snapback]

 

No, it wasn't a set-up (though I know it sounded like one). I actually wanted to know what your position was. So, if I understand your definition correctly it is the use of IEDs that defines it as terrorism. Would attacks using RPGs or mortars, for instance, then not be terrorism?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No, it wasn't a set-up (though I know it sounded like one). I actually wanted to know what your position was. So, if I understand your definition correctly it is the use of IEDs that defines it as terrorism. Would attacks using RPGs or mortars, for instance, then not be terrorism?

782797[/snapback]

 

No, IED's was just a convenient example (specifically, a convenient example of a manner of exerting psychological pressure. Given that 30+ IEDs are detonated a day, but kill relatively few people, and VERY few Americans at this point, it's an ineffective manner of producing casualties. It's a very effective psychological stressor, though, as no one in a convoy ever knows where the next one's going to be.) The same thing could be said about sporadic sniper fire, or random rocket attacks on northern Israel, or the opening "shock and awe" bombing in the invasion of Iraq (though it's tough to conclusively define that as "terrorism"...but I could make a good case for it).

 

But I was trying to make a specific point about psychological effects with my IED example as an example. I wasn't judging IEDs themselves, or failing to judge any other device, so don't read too much into it.

 

Plus, if you're focusing on technology, you're probably missing the point. Terrorism isn't about the material used.

[chicot]

No, IED's was just a convenient example (specifically, a convenient example of a manner of exerting psychological pressure.  Given that 30+ IEDs are detonated a day, but kill relatively few people, and VERY few Americans at this point, it's an ineffective manner of producing casualties.  It's a very effective psychological stressor, though, as no one in a convoy ever knows where the next one's going to be.)  The same thing could be said about sporadic sniper fire, or random rocket attacks on northern Israel, or the opening "shock and awe" bombing in the invasion of Iraq (though it's tough to conclusively define that as "terrorism"...but I could make a good case for it). 

 

But I was trying to make a specific point about psychological effects with my IED example as an example.  I wasn't judging IEDs themselves, or failing to judge any other device, so don't read too much into it. 

 

Plus, if you're focusing on technology, you're probably missing the point.  Terrorism isn't about the material used.

782823[/snapback]

 

You beat me to it. I was going to say that if you define terrorism by the psychological effects produced, a case could be made that "shock and awe" falls into that category.

[BoondckCL]

There's a difference?

782742[/snapback]

 

Wow i spaced out there, is it a result of terrorism or war fatigue?

 

That was the question that i meant to ask, but i woke up and responded pretty much at the same time.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You beat me to it. I was going to say that if you define terrorism by the psychological effects produced, a case could be made that "shock and awe" falls into that category.

782880[/snapback]

 

I think, after spending a good chunk of the day mulling it over, that "shock and awe" differs from "terrorism" in the purpose and target of the psychological exercise. Traditionally, in military campaigns, it is not only acceptable but preferred to operate in such a way as to confuse, discomfit, and basically !@#$ up the opponent's command and control. That is, by its nature, a psychological exercise...but it's a psychological exercise against a well-defined military center of mass. That is, the purpose of the "shock and awe" campaign wasn't to simply terrify Saddam Hussein, but to significantly degrade if not eliminate his command ability (to which end freaking him out can certainly help...so can killing him, so can keeping him so deep in hiding that he can't talk to anyone). But the psychological effect wasn't the end, just the means. (And traditionally, C&C objectives are a legitimate military target; Saddam would have been well within his rights under international law to attempt to kill the US president in response to the invasion.)

 

Terrorism, on the other hand, attempts to achieve a psychological effect on a much wider, societal scale. Case in point: Hizb'allah shelling northern Israel. They're not hitting any military center of mass with that action...but they are trying to exert a constant psychological pressure. Another case in point: 9/11. The infrastructure damage, while extreme, was actually secondary to the symbolic (i.e. psychological) nature of the targets. Or the Madrid bombings, which were highly successful in that they exerted enough psychological pressure to effect a change of government. Or even IEDs in Iraq, which do not operate against the occupation's center-of-mass in any real sense (really, in any realistic military terms, such attacks against convoys are just nibbiling little bites on the periphery of the occupation forces), but have a disproportionate symbolic effect regardless.

 

Really, the more I think about it, the more I'm seeing that terrorism is characterized by operations against targets away from any center-of-mass (military or social), in an attempt to exert influence indirectly on said centers-of-mass. Which is why "shock and awe" isn't really terrorism: it's a direct action against a distinctly (and distinctly legitimate) military objective, namely command and control, with a primary effect being physical disruption rather than psychological.