President Bush’s ‘Global War on Terror’ has opened a new area of derision for American politics and diplomacy.  How do we classify those heads of state that oppose us politically or militarily?  How do we define who is an insurgent versus who is a terrorist?  Can an entire nation, state, or movement be terrorist in nature?  Then of course comes the question; who sets the international standard for these politically definitive definitions?

Egypt, Syria and most of Europe regard the Lebanese based organization, Hezbollah, as a legitimate political movement.  The United States regards them as a terrorist group, and holds the same opinion of the new Palestinian leadership, Hamas. 

On the other hand, the entire world regards Al Queda as a terrorist organization without reservation. But the matter comes to a standstill when considering the status of the Iraqi insurgency led by the violently anti-U. S. Shia cleric, Moqtada al Sadra. 

Are both groups,equally, guilty of being terrorist organizations, when al Queda militants come from outside of Iraq, while al Sadra's forces are composed of Iraqi citizens? Can a Bush administration - 'one size fits all philosophy' - fairly and credibly encompass both organizations?

Yet at this very critical juncture in our dealings with the Arab world, in one fell swoop, President George Bush has managed to bundle the Islamic faith and fascism into one monumental insult to the Muslim faith, by creating the term – Islamo-fascism.

Why didn’t he simply say - Islamic Nazis? That term is at least easier to spell, pronounce and couldn’t possibly have been any more damaging to our nation’s efforts to gain support and cooperation against terrorism from the Arab world community.

What Is Terrorism ?

Before a war can be fought with a specific type of enemy that does not fit precisely into the long established code of war of the Geneva Conventions, it is absolutely imperative that you first define, not only that enemy, but his means of fighting as well.

Terrorism As a Tactic of War

Every war is fought with some degree of terror tactics involved, and those knowledgeable with the Allied firebombing of the German city of Dresden (February 13-15, 1945) will agree it was a terror tactic.  For it marked the first time bombing raids were specifically targeted upon a civilian populace, rather than upon factories and military installations. The bombing raids were so intense; the resultant fires consumed most of the oxygen in the air, resulting in the asphyxiation of most of the citizenry.

As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (who initially approved of the joint British-American air raids, but later tried to distance himself from) prominently noted in a memo of March 28, 1945, the value of the raids were that of inflicting terror and nothing more.  Note these excerpts from his memo:

“It seems to me that the time has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the [terror], though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.  Otherwise we shall come to control of an utterly ruined land…. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.

“The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of [terror] and wanton destruction, however impressive.”

The misgivings expressed by Churchill appear not to have run through the minds of the Israeli leadership, as they relentlessly bombed the civilian population of Lebanon during their recent war with Hezbollah. 

Their attempts to extricate the forces of the PLO in 1982 by the same method must have clearly indicated that the only effective sure way to achieve such an end is to send in an army and fight face to face. But rather than risk a heavy loss of their forces, they chose instead to terrorize the civilian population of Lebanon into doing the job of routing the enemy out for them.  The deadly ploy didn’t work.  Right to the final hour of the negotiated cease-fire, the Hezbollah rockets rained down on Israel.

Like it or not, ‘terror’ as a tactic is in most cases acceptable as part and parcel of a legitimate war effort.  The remaining question is the legitimacy of those who employ such tactics.

What is a Terrorist?

Back in the 1970’s, the entire world lived in fear of a terrorist entity known as “Carlos – the Jackal.”  Carlos’ real name was Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, and he was born on October 12, 1949 in Caracas Venezuela in the state of Tachira.  This man who once studied for the Catholic priesthood, was the son of a devout Marxist who gave his son the name of his hero Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov – better known to the world as Lenin.

“Carlos” made his first attempted ‘hit’ in London England on December 30, 1973.  His target was Joseph Sieff who was, at the time, one of the most successful Jewish businessmen in Great Britain, and honorary vice president of the British Zionist Federation. Sieff was accorded the dubious honor of being “Carlos’” first victim.

At point blank range” Carlos” shot Sieff in his home, but failed to kill him with a necessary second shot due to a weapon malfunction. Until his apprehension two decades later that was the only time he’d be robbed of success.  “Carlos” was finally trapped and captured on August 13, 1994, which ended his international terror spree.

A Guide to Defining a Terrorist

“Carlos” was the poster boy of - International Terrorism - because he operated ‘outside’ of his home country.  Therefore, he should be employed as the standard for determining, on an international scale, who is and who isn’t a terrorist.

If he’d remained in his birth country and committed the same acts within an established political group or movement he would have been an - Insurgent. 

If however he’d committed those same acts, for whatever reasons, without benefit of membership within a political movement or legitimate group representation or hired himself out, randomly, to various groups and political movements, he’d have been simply a  - Serial Killer.

Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, operates internationally and is the head of the terror organization, al Queda that operates internationally.  Osama Bin Laden is a – Terror Broker.

The late Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, operating for Bin Laden’s international network as a field lieutenant, was simply a - Terrorist.

In the case of Iraq’s Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadra, and his murderous militia, like it or not, he is an Insurgent Leader fighting in a civil war.  To prevent his forces fighting with and killing our soldiers, remove them from his country.  It’s as simple as that.

The Palestinian Problem that Won’t Go Away

Middle East matters, however, are not always clear cut, and is the basis for all those who foretell that there will never be any peace possible in the Middle East, until the Palestinian issue is finally resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved.  And a perfect example of the dilemma that can arise in this environment when trying to define who is and who isn’t a terrorist, is best exemplified by examining the historical status of two men: the late Yasser Arafat and Monachem Begin.

Arafat was the decades long leader of what many considered to be a legitimate political movement – to re-establish a Palestinian State.  Unfortunately for the Israelis, that state was planned on land they occupied, which they had usurped from the Palestinians because they claimed the Arabs had done the same to them 2000 years previous.

The terrorist definition situation became even more complicated when Monachem Begin, once a well-known and wanted terrorist during the days when Israel was known as Palestine and governed by the British, became Israel’s Prime Minister (1977-1983).

Begin immediately declared Arafat a terrorist and his Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) a terrorist group.  But when questioned about his extensive and documented terrorist past, Begin declared that he’d been a ‘patriot’ not a terrorist – even if the country he was patriotic for did not exist at the time. 

Was either of these two men terrorists?  Had either of these two men been terrorists?  I would say it would be for future history, not an American presidential administration to decide based upon political or partisan inspired initiatives.

It should be noted however, that at one time, both men addressed the United Nations and visited the White House as honored guests and state leaders.

Defining State Sponsorship of Terrorism

Should any nation, including the United States, choose to label a head of state of another country as a sponsor of terrorism, to be credible, it must do so in the glow of its own actions in the same arena of judgment. 

No one seriously doubts that Iran and Syria sponsor the Lebanese militant political movement, Hezbollah.  But then again, in the aftermath of the extreme bombing of heavily populated civilian areas of Lebanon by Israel, with the open employment of powerful bunker busting bombs and heavy munitions supplied by America, much of the world regards the U.S. in the same light.

We charged Saddam Hussein with being a supporter of terror because he contributed money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  But we turned a blind eye to the open funding from Irish Americans to the former terrorist based IRA.

In fact, America has often been guilty of funding and giving logistical support to insurgent groups at war within their own countries; all under the aegis that we regard as justified: that being the spreading of Democracy.

In point of fact, America has far too often been guilty of the cardinal sin of ‘trying to have it both ways’; and the Bush administration has been the most pernicious at trying to ‘have their cake and eat it too.’

For obvious political reasons, they want to be the sole arbiters and have the final say of whom and what is a terrorist, and which country is a state sponsor of terrorism.  If you think this criticism too harsh, consider this ‘unspoken’ point of view of successive American presidential administrations: the demand for a ‘nuclear free’ Middle East with no clandestine nuclear weapons programs, but the refusal to even consider a debate as to whether this dictate should include Israel – which has a decades long clandestine nuclear weapons program?

Finally, hanging over all of our heads like the ‘Sword of Damocles’ is North Korea, which no one has been able to categorize or define.  And it doesn’t help a shaky world situation when a world leader of a powerful and influential nation, like America, refers to such states whose behavior he doesn’t approve of as part of an - ‘Axis of Evil.’ 

For this very reason if no other, the present mindset of George Bush, facing the sunset of his term in office, makes me very uneasy.

Looking back at the shattered remains of the limited achievements of his tenure, Bush must instinctively be aware that the Iraq War; the most costly, domestically draining foreign conflict ever entered into by any American presidential administration in our history, will ultimately and inevitably (barring a miracle) define his presidency.

Therefore, with about 25 months left to his reign of power, one has to be concerned as to what he might decide to do before he exits.  My personal fear is that this man, a simple-minded cowboy who knows that, career-wise, he’s headed for his last roundup will, on the way out, do or try something  - spectacular.

From his politically myopic ‘born again Christian’ point of view, George Bush may just decide that Iran is his last-best chance to exit the White House in a blaze of glory for ‘God and country.’  I sincerely hope that I am wrong!  But as concerns this president, unfortunately, I have been right before.