". . . I was surprised at how relatively few readers wrote in about the media’s – specifically Reuters’s and the BBC’s – refusal to label those who detonate themselves in crowds of civilians or otherwise commit acts of terror as “terrorists.” Instead, Reuters and the BBC (as a matter of policy) and other media outlets (habitually) employ the term “militants.” Perhaps this has been annoying us for so long, it just goes without saying."Now, I'll be the last to pretend that the mainstream media hasn't got it's list of buzzwords and euphemistic conversions for obfuscating political debate. But what is wrong with calling these suicide-bombers "militants"? Is it because the term "terrorist" carries with it the implication that the nature of the act of violence alone is enough to bring discredit to the cause the perpetrator is seeking, whatever it may be? That because a "militant" may be one who uses the tool of violent force as a means to an end -- and end which society may (depending on the circumstance) countenance or find morally tenable -- that it unduly enobles the terrorist, putting him, possibly, or at least in a theoretical sense, on the same plane as these other combatants?
It is a common thread in many debates: The way in which a person or group strives toward a outcome is as important as the goal he seeks. Put more divisively, Sometimes that methodology is so extreme in it's nature and intermediate results, it is deemed morally untenable, no matter the worthy causes that it may further. On the other hand, we see instances where the "means" is so much in harmony with our social mores and higher aspirations that we laud and commend them, consciously independent of the direct effect (or lack thereof) on the issue they were meant to address. Terrorism is an example of the former, as is (to many) torture. In the latter we see many well-intentioned peace movements, research-funding charities, and even religions - though in this last it might profitably be argued that as positive results -- even if it be only individuals comprising a small subset of the whole -- involves eternal or otherwise incomparable benefit, they cannot be weighed against apparent downsides.
But do we really feel that terrorism is so objectionable? Or has Western Civilization simply never found a compelling reason to use it, or been faced with a situation where no other means were available? To be sure, it is a weapon of one-sided utility. Targeting small samples of civilians in an effort to bring about concrete policy changes only makes sense if the targeted individuals are part of a society where the individual is valued, and furthermore, has a say in the goings-on of his government. Political institutions which are responsive to the needs and concerns of their constituency are those which can be most profitably influenced by an attack on the citizenry's assurance of security and safety. Such methods would hardly produce results if used against the despots and tyrannical regimes who employ them: Saddam Hussein murdered many of his own people in his refusal to compromise his political goals, and more pragmatically, the Soviet Union lost hundreds of their own to accidents and dysfunctional weaponry in their race to outfit their military with the latest stolen American technology. In the first example, the individual held no importance, in the second, he was merely de-prioritized.
So it is easy to hate something which can only be used against you. But many would say there is a moral issue, one involving the sanctity of "innocence" as a defense against unasked-for involvement in deadly conflict. This presupposes that all combatants are somehow less worthy of this same respect, that if it comes to a choice between the 19-year-old pulling hours at the local supermarket or the 19-year-old recruit who is drafted into WWII, the former is somehow more deserving of his life. The "innocent civilian" even of the enemy is given greater value than the lives of our recruits: We find it acceptable to loose more of our servicemen to a war that is prolonged because the enemy hide out in hospitals and schoolhouses that we dare not attack. We have made war into a "gentleman's game," tried to make it a question of honorable dispute, where a "low blow" is decried simply because it is against the rules.
But there is nothing honorable about attempting to subjugate the will and productive capacities of your fellow men to further your own concept of personal greatness. And unfortunately, as we have seen time and again throughout history, such ruthless and -- dare I say it? -- evil people are not inclined to follow our rules of engagement, anymore than they submitted to those rules of society whose destruction they fight for. We know this, and yet we insist on pretending that war can be sanitized, that the battle field must be plainly marked, and far away from us. What we protest is not the cruel end of domination and tyranny, nor even the terrible human toll which the perpetrators are willing to exact for their cause, but that we may find ourselves the unwitting casualty in their war.
It is not the means, but the end that is contemptible . If the only utility for terrorism is the destruction of a free society in favor of a violent and self-serving tyranny, then why attempt to separate our disdain for that goal from our objections to it's methods?
I think it is because we have come to believe, illogically, that the objectionable nature of an unworthy goal is insufficient cause to combat those who seek it, whatever their methods. We have all heard it said (and have all said, at least once) that "the end does not justify the means." It is an oft-used argument, employed when one is unwilling to commit to a position opposed to the stated end, but nevertheless wishes to kill any proposal and block any route that may lead to it. It is a platitude which I think falls well within H. L. Mencken's definition:
Of course the end can justify the means. No-one enjoys a visit to the doctor, but even children will admit that they would rather that than an alternative of ill-heath, or worse (though they may not be so easy to convince at the appointed hour!). We all know couples who were pulled-over for speeding, only to be sent hastily on their way again when the ticketing officer realized the woman was in labor.
What is objectionable about these terrorists is that they are striving to pull down free and open societies and bolster a system of control and religious intolerance. Thus ANY means is objectionable. But to attempt to justify a stance in opposition to these militants based primarily on the non-military status of their victims is to undermine both the very good reasons to oppose their ultimate goal, and any other non-military action that has been fought for a good cause. It was not government property that was destroyed at the Boston Tea Party, that boat was no man-of-war. The men working the power-plants and rubber factories and fixing the roads and railways in Hitler's Germany were not military. But in any war, the best places to attack your enemy is where and when he is not prepared for it. The classic flank and ambush are as old as war itself. In the world wars, America and her allies attacked the enemy's economic and industrial infrastructure, by repeatedly carpet bombing broad sections of the country and even it's unwilling tributaries. It gradually weakened their ability to maintain and expand a projected military. The Islamic militants attack our moral and economic infrastructure by attempting to sew enough uncertainty in the stock market -- and yes, terror in the streets -- to cause our government to take notice and decide that safety at home is worth more than promoting freedom abroad.
We don't like it because we're the victims. But our distaste of their methods is not a moral sanction to resist their attacks, anymore than the defenders of slavery during our own Civil War were justified in opposing emancipation because of the economic devastation it would do to the South. We can justly combat Islamic fascism only based on our belief that freedom is the right of all mankind -- that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the liberty of self-determination is granted "by Nature and by Nature's God" to every human being. If we don't believe that -- if we attempt to justify this war based on technicalities of strategy in order to avoid making a stand in favor of the marvelous principles upon which this country is founded, in order to avoid declaring unequivocally that some ideologies are evil while some moral principles are worth fighting and dying for, then we have no justification. For however humane we are with the captured militants, or however careful we are to avoid harming civilians, it is not the means with which we fight, but the noble end which we fight for that is our moral justification in this war. Let us not delude the very well-defined conflict between freedom and tyranny -- between good and evil -- by transforming it into an amoral battle against violence and "terror".
