In a current Times and Seasons post there is a discussion of the definition of terrorism. As this is my primary research interest, I thought it might be helpful to expound on my own personal definition here in this forum.

To establish my credentials, I am an assistant professor of political science at Kansas State University where I teach internation relations and security related classes and I focus my research on terrorism issues. I was one of the few who were studying terrorism before 9/11. I apologize for the length, but for those interested it may prove helpful.

There are two major difficulties which face researchers working in the field of terrorism. First is a definitional problem. Second, is the fact that the literature in the field of terrorism seems to be a regurgitation of the same information. Once early pioneers in the field published their seminal works, very little new research has replaced it. That is not to say there is not interesting and exciting research being done in this field. Research into the “new terrorism” or terrorism conducted by fundamental groups is necessary as well as timely. However, due to recent events, anyone feeling they had anything to say relating to terrorism was able to publish a supposedly ‘definitive’ work on terrorism. This study cites the original research rather than the later iterations.

Intrinsic to this study is the concept of terrorism itself. One of the difficulties facing researchers in the field is the fact that there is considerable disagreement as to the very definition of terrorism. A quick review of the literature shows that there is no accepted definition in government or in academia. Kushner notes, “There are as many definitions for the word terrorism as there are methods of executing it; the term means different things to different people, and trying to define or classify terrorism to everyone’s satisfaction proves impossible.” The U.S. government itself has ten different definitions of terrorism. This leads to confusion and misuse which only makes the study of the phenomenon more difficult. Louise Richardson noted:

The widespread usage of the term terrorism, in many contexts, has rendered the word almost meaningless. Today, it’s only universally understood connotation is so pejorative that even terrorists don’t admit to being terrorists any more. A glance at the current usage reveals child abuse, racism, and gang warfare all incorrectly described as terrorism.

Given this confusing state, it is not surprising that the study of terrorism has struggled over the very definitional aspect of the central topic of research.
A clear definition of terrorism is essential to this study for many reasons. First, in any systematic study of a phenomenon, it is necessary to have discreet definitions of the items being studied in order to ensure consistent and valid conclusions. It is especially important to have a concrete definition when there is no clear consensus as to what is or is not terrorism. To that end, the definition used in this study focuses on what distinguishes terrorism from other phenomenon. Each aspect of terrorism, then, is accompanied with a related aspect of other; similar phenomenon and the distinguishing or differentiating traits are explicated. The result is a clarification of what is and is not terrorism as it relates to this study.

SCOPE OF DEFINITION

For the purposes of this study, terrorism is defined as the threat or use of violence on non-combatant populations or property with the express goal of creating or exploiting fear in a larger audience for political or ideological reasons. This definition consists of four primary points. First is the threat or use of violence. Second is the use of that violence on non-combatant targets. Third is the creation or exploitation of fear in a larger audience than the specific target group. And last is the political or ideological reason for which this violence is being committed. To better explicate this definition, each aspect of the definition will be treated separately. The reasoning for including each of the definitional characteristics will also be explained. Additional characteristics of terrorism will also be explicated and explored.

DEFINITION AND ILLUSTRATION OF TERRORISM:
USE OF VIOLENCE

First and foremost, terrorism is a sub-classification of political violence, which in turn is a sub-classification of violence. This relationship is illustrated by Figure 2.1. Political violence can be defined as the use or threat of violence for political purposes. As such, terrorism and political violence have two common defining characteristics. Terrorism and political violence are different in the choice of targets and the creation and exploitation of fear. While all terrorism is political violence, not all political violence is terrorism.

The use or threat of violence is integral to the definition of terrorism. The threat of violence is all that is necessary for an act to be terrorism. For example, a threatened bombing which is done to create fear in non-combatants for political reasons need never explode for the act to be considered terrorism. In a similar vein, the initial violent act need not be successful for the strategic goal to be accomplished and terrorism to have occurred. In other words, if the September 11 planes had all crashed into Pennsylvania fields, the acts would have been successful due to the threat that hijackings posed on the security of the United States as well as the safety of the transportation system. This aspect will be further explored in a later section.

If the defining point of terrorism were the creation or exploitation of fear alone, then Stephen King would be a terrorist. Hoffman notes this in his criticism of the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of terrorism, “While accurately communicating the fear-inducing quality of terrorism, the definition is still so broad as to apply to almost any action that scares (‘terrorizes’) us. The carefully orchestrated and directed use of force is more than just the vehicle by which people are terrorized. It is the means by which the terrorists demonstrate the powerlessness of governments to keep order. In other words, since governments cannot keep violence from the citizenry, they lose credibility and legitimacy. The violence against citizens further destabilizes the social fabric of society; furthering the basic goals of terrorist groups.
The use or threat of violence is also important as a defining characteristic due to the heavy reliance of terrorism on bringing the act before the world stage. The use of violence and the press coverage that it garners become integral to the terrorist act.

Indeed, recent work seems to indicate a ratcheting up of the level of violence in order to capture the media attention. The goal is to shock and provoke, thus calling attention to the cause of the perpetrators. This then differs from other political dissent by literally becoming ‘propaganda of the deed’. This aspect of terrorism will be further explored in the target section of this work.

Certainly, the threat or use of force does not, a priori, constitute terrorism. As Weber noted, a state is the entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Government power, then, is the exclusive threat or use of force on its own citizens. While governments may engage in terrorism against their own population or other state’s citizens, clearly, the use or threat of force alone does not constitute terrorism.

The threat or use of force can also be used to define a criminal act. Threatening force in order to gain money is the hallmark for such criminal activities as armed robbery or extortion. While these activities may threaten force and even terrorize the victims, they do not reach the critical definitional aspects of terrorism. Clearly, something else is needed to reach that benchmark.

TARGETS OF TERRORISM

The target of the terrorist act is also an important distinction in creating the definition of terrorism used in this research. This definition states that the target must be people or property that are non-combatant. At the heart of this distinction is the central aspect of terrorism—creating or exploiting fear through violence in a population greater than that specifically targeted by the act. If the target of the attack were only combatant personnel or property, then it would limit the scope of violence and inhibit the generation of fear in the general population. An astute student put it this way, “there are no innocents to a terrorist.” If a French tourist happens to die in a mass attack bombing of a bus in a public square in Jerusalem, it is justified by the terrorists that the tourist was equally as “guilty” because he or she was supporting the Israelis by visiting. Certainly the perpetrators of the terrorism consider those they attack to be legitimate targets. Common acceptance, however, does not.

The non-combatant distinction is important when faced by the ever-present statement in terrorism: one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Many definitions of terrorism would include all involved in guerrilla warfare or insurrection as terrorists. Indeed, using that definition, the Americans fighting the British in the Revolutionary War would have been terrorists. This seems too expansive. Therefore, the definition utilized in this work will exclude those actors who are carrying out violence against government combatants as in revolution and civil disobedience.

The question still remains, what about those people who carry out violence on combatant personnel or property, but also hurt civilians in the process? Timothy McVeigh targeted a government building full of government employees. Whether the occupants of the building consisted of combatants is the central question. Despite this problem, the acceptance of collateral damage casualties may constitute terrorism. To McVeigh, the civilian casualties, including the children in the daycare, were an unfortunate byproduct or collateral damage. While the primary target may have been government property, the willingness of McVeigh to create the sheer amount of collateral damage which then created an environment of fear in the general public moves the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building from a guerilla act of revolt to an act of terrorism. Further, while the Murrah Federal Building was owned by the government of the United States housing arguably combatant personnel, it was not just a government building. The building housed a credit union as well as the much-publicized childcare center.

Brian Jenkins noted, that the act of terrorism is similar to a play acted out on a stage. People may be watching the action from different perspectives including those on the stage itself. However, the primary message is for those who are indeed in the audience rather than those whom the actors are interacting with physically.

Drake pointed out that in the course of a terrorist attack, there may be many targets of attack: the physical target and perhaps many other psychological targets. Indeed, the definitional characteristic of terrorism for Drake is that “the succession of attacks is meant to create a psychological reaction in a person or group of people—the psychological target or targets—to make them act in a way that the attacker desires.” Certainly both state and non-state actors may wish to create and exploit fear in non-combatant populations. When doing these acts, both would be engaged in terrorism. The fact that a government commits a terrorist act does not remove the labeling of the act. Stalin was a master of creating and exploiting fear in the agrarian population of Russia. His acts were most certainly terrorism.

When state actors engage in war, they may elect to try to create fear in the non-combatant populations of their adversaries. The central question of motivation now becomes important. In most cases, states engage in this type of exercise in order to gain economic or military advantage. The goal is not necessarily the creation and exploitation of fear, but of military or economic advantage. This type of activity could be labeled terrorism. While non-state actors may also engage in this type of behavior, the motivation in the target selection and attack becomes defining in terms of labeling an act terrorism. Thus, both states and non-state actors can engage in terrorism. This concept will be explored later.

If the war of ideas is centrally important to the perpetrators of terrorism, then the selection of targets becomes paramount. Too much violence and wanton destruction could, in fact, erode support for the cause, while too little may not garner the necessary publicity to carry the act before the larger stage and create fear in the larger population. Targets are selected carefully for symbolic or ideological effect. It is important to note that the rationale for selecting a certain target need not make sense to the general public. The rationale need only make sense to the members. The rationality of terrorist acts will be addressed later.
C.J.M. Drake notes that there may be many types of targets for terrorists. In other words, people or property may be targeted for a number of different goals. The types of targets in Drake’s targeting typology are distinguished by purpose of the attack. The typology includes symbolic targets which are meant to trigger a psychological reaction in the greater audience. Also included are functional targets; the existence of which constitutes a threat to the organization. Drake next includes logistical targets which protect or provide logistical assets to the terrorists’ movement. Drake’s final target type is an expressive target which is an emotional response to events rather than a planned strategy. An act selected to accomplish one goal may also accomplish other goals at the same time. An example could be the kidnapping of American businessmen in Colombia by FARC insurgents. While the immediate goal might be logistical (fundraising), this kidnapping could also accomplish other acts such as discrediting the Columbian government and their ability to keep order as well as dissuading American businessmen from coming to Columbia (symbolic and expressive targets).

Drake’s targeting typology is most helpful in research such as this. However, it is relatively new in the literature. Martha Crenshaw also created a targeting typology based on the psychological response the act is hoping to evoke in a larger, secondary target population. Until recently, that has been a benchmark in targeting literature. Drake classifies his typology in terms of strategic targeting. Crenshaw’s first category in her typology is the elimination of threats which is analogous to Drake’s functional targets. The second is compliance or the attempt to force a target population to act in a certain way. Next is disorientation which is aimed at eliminating the stability of everyday life through the removal of stabilizing institutions. Also included in the typology are attrition attacks or the removal of targets with a psychological value in order to wear down the will of the target population. Provocation is also a targeting imperative that attempts to make the psychological target act in a way that alienates the target from sympathizers. Advertisement is attempted by groups who wish to call attention to their movement through the act itself. Finally, the endorsement imperative is the attempt to garner support from potential sympathizers through the action.

Terrorist organizations are also constrained by the tactical environment within which they are operating. The relative danger of carrying out the attack in terms of the threat the attack poses for the perpetrators certainly affects the target selection. Also, the relative ease in terms of cost, resources, and target hardening helps to determine who or what is targeted.
In the end, the final target selection is made through a series of constraints forced upon the terrorists by their ideology, strategy, and tactics. If those constraints force an attack on non-combatants for ideological reasons, then the attack reaches the benchmark for terrorism. As was discussed previously, terrorism and political violence share the use or threat of violence for a political or ideological purpose as defining attributes. One of the aspects of terrorism that separates terrorism from the larger grouping of political violence is the choice of targets. Political violence can be perpetrated against any target—combatant or non-combatant alike. However, terrorism can only be committed on non-combatants. This concept will be enormously helpful in creating a definition of terrorism that is discreet and testable.

USE/EXPLOITATION OF FEAR

Another important aspect of defining terrorism is the creation or exploitation of fear. This becomes an additional differentiating factor between terrorism and political violence. Terrorism is the use or threat of violence on non-combatant populations to create and exploit fear in a larger population for political or ideological reasons. However, political violence is the use or threat of violence on any target for political or ideological reasons. Certainly both are conducted by groups for ideological or political reasons. The distinction emerges when considering the targets and the methods. The target aspect was considered above. The more problematical of the defining aspects of terrorism will now be considered.

The distinction between terrorism and political violence is in the methods employed by the perpetrators. Specifically, terrorists conduct their violence or threat of violence in order to create and exploit fear in a larger population than the specific target groups. However, political violence has no such requirement. The secondary and psychological targets that are created and exploited in a terrorist act have been discussed in previous sections. The difficulty lies in determining the motivation of the perpetrators. It is extremely difficult to know if the goal of the violence is the creation and exploitation of terror on a larger audience. Because of these difficulties, this study will treat all violence on civilian targets by groups for a political or ideological reason the same as terrorism. While it is true that terrorist groups often claim responsibility for the act of terrorism, thus reinforcing their ideological message and heightening media exposure, it is not always the case. The difficulties inherent in assigning motive to actors was explained by Fowler:

One major difficulty in creating a rigorous and consistent operational definition of terrorist acts is the necessity of attributing certain motives to violent acts. What distinguishes a political bombing from a bombing by, say, someone who is simply criminally insane is the motivation of the bomber.

IDEOLOGY

One of the difficulties of defining terrorism is determining whether the act was terrorism, spurred by an ideological strategy, or an act of violence, perpetrated by simple criminals, for other causes. It is for this reason that ideology plays such an important role in the definition. Terrorism is intrinsically linked with politics. While there are many definitions of politics, each definition captures an aspect of terrorism. Often politics is described by the control of state structures. Insurgent terrorists may be engaged in terrorism in order to gain control of those state structures. Another definition is that of Laswell: “who gets what, where, when, and how.” Terrorists may strive for control of the allocation of resources. A third definition of terrorism is Easton’s: “the authoritative allocations of values within a society.” Terrorists may be engaged in the struggle to control the social, cultural or religious values of a population.

The random attacks by snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, except for the lack of ideological foundations, could be labeled terrorism. However, without the ideological roots, the shootings were simply the criminal acts carried out by two criminal outcasts of society. Laqueur again notes that this definitional problem has existed throughout the history of terrorism in his explanation of the sicarii, “Josephus doubted their idealistic motivation and claimed that they were listai, robbers, out for personal gain and manipulated by outside forces, with patriotism and the demand for freedom a mere ideological cloak.” While the terrorist act is, a priori, a criminal act, both governments and scholars have struggled over whether terrorism should be treated as a criminal act or as an act of war.

Certainly, groups that have engaged in terrorist acts have also engaged in criminal acts for gain and tried to justify the acts through ideology. Recent kidnappings by FARC and Abu Sayyef may have crossed the line from terrorism and have become criminal acts for gain. These groups have been financing their insurrections through the proceeds of ransoming hostages. It is certainly up to debate whether this, then, crosses the line into terrorism. However, when the acts of violence are perpetrated solely for the purpose of getting money, the ideological underpinnings of the movement are eroded. The war of ideas is central to most terrorist movements.

Money itself may also be important to the ideological movement. A terrorist campaign requires logistical support. As such, terrorist groups may engage in activities designed solely to obtain money. Johan Most noted that money was a more potent and essential weapon than dynamite. As discussed previously, there can be many goals of a single terrorist act. The act may not only secure logistical support but also erode a financial system’s stability. The difficulty is once again determining the goals of the act itself. As a result, violence perpetrated on non-combatants as a means of gaining logistical support such as money for ideological reasons, may be characterized as terrorism.

Essentially, terrorism is the means by which some organizations pursue a political or ideological end. The end is important enough to justify means that would typically be taboo to groups within society. Thus the murder of innocent children could be justified as the only means of accomplishing a political end for groups that may not have the resources to accomplish the end in any other way.