Term Paper (feedback desired)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:20:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate
  Political Essays & Deliberation (Moderator: Torie)
  Term Paper (feedback desired)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Term Paper (feedback desired)  (Read 9301 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 29, 2005, 02:33:46 AM »

This is a term paper I've been working on, and I think its very interesting.  I'm not sure how well written/structured it is.

I will also warn you, that the conclusions I come to will be somewhat (though not extremely) surprising, and at first some here may find the conclusion unpleasant.  I have come to them as I believe they are the logical conclusion to come to given my assumptions.  I will have to post it in more than one post, because of its length.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2005, 02:39:22 AM »

One Man's Terrorist…
By John Ford

…is another man's freedom fighter, goes the saying.  American leaders, some would say, use pejorative language to describe people against whom they intend to rally the American people.  The logic goes, we would be happy to support (and in fact already have) guerillas that are no different from these terrorists except for the fact that they are on our side of a geopolitical chess game.  Don't be fooled by words like "terrorist" when applied to Al Qaeda, and don't be fooled when words like "freedom fighter" or "guerilla fighter" are applied to say, the Mujahideen.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and which one we call a certain group of people at a given time is simply a matter of perspective.

Given that this line of thinking has become pervasive, and that is has profound implications regarding the moral right of the United States to wage war on Al Qaeda, it is worthwhile to examine whether the old saying is true.

A Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism is the use of terror or fear as a weapon or war.  Karl von Klausewitz book On War contains the famous passage that, "War is politics by other means."  Terrorism is perhaps the ultimate fusion of the military and the political.  The strategy of terrorism uses acts of violence against civilians and threats of future acts against civilians of violence to compel those civilians to cease supporting their governments and its policies.  The policies the terrorists seek to erode support for are usually very specific.

We can see that the recent attacks of 9/11 certainly fit this definition; there are acts of violence against civilian targets with the purpose of ending specific American policies through intimidation.  Osama bin Laden launched an attack against two civilian targets (The World Trade Center and passenger airliners) and one military target (The Pentagon) with the objective of creating enough fear among the American populace that they would force the government to capitulate to the terrorists demands.  These demands included but were not limited to: The withdrawal of US military personnel from Saudi Arabia, the ending of economic and military sanctions on Iraq, and a cessation of American material support for Israel.

Predecessors of Modern Terrorism

Caleb Carr, a military historian and novelist, outlines in great detail the history of terrorism in warfare in his book The Lessons of Terror.  Unlike most examination, which focus on terrorism as a political or social phenomenon, Carr tells a narrative of the history of terrorism that places it squarely within military history.  He writes:

"…the purposeful targeting of civilians is nothing new in warfare - in fact it is, as said, as old as warfare itself- and the world has been more than willing to accord the status of "soldiers" to some of its most vicious practitioners.  This book then is no a history of fringe groups or obscure cults.  It is the tale of a type of war that has been practiced at one time or another by every nation on Earth - Including the United States."

To Carr, terrorism is a military tactic (albeit, he says, a morally reprehensible one), like an artillery barrage.  A terrorist likewise is a kind of soldier, loathe as Americans may be to bestow a title of such nobility on someone like Mohammed Atta.  Terrorism to Carr is not a new phenomenon brought about by social forces in the era of anti-colonialism.  Terrorism is a military tactic that goes back nearly to the beginning of war itself, as the generals of antiquity saw that fear was a tremendous weapon, just as bin Laden does today, and they chose to use it.  And to Carr, terrorism is not something that is exclusive to various non-state actors like the IRA or Tamil Tigers, but it has been employed at some point by almost every modern nation state, including the United States.

The Romans, for example, used what they called "punitive war" to punish enemies and dissuade anyone from opposing them preemptively.  The destruction of Carthage is a prominent example of this.  The city was burned, the men were killed, the women were raped and then killed, and the children were sold into slavery.  The Roman's then salted the Earth, symbolizing the fact that Carthage would never return.  This kind of total destruction sent a clear signal: Fear Rome.  The example of Carthage was used to terrorize the mind of every subject people within the Empire and every foreign enemy of the Empire.  If terrorism is, as previously discussed, the use of fear as a weapon, then Roman "punitive warfare" was in part a terrorist tactic, and its very name suggests its purpose is not simply to inflict the damage required to pacify an enemy but to relish in the enemy's total and complete destruction, going above and beyond the damage needed to simply win.

American military history has its own examples of terrorism, most notably Sherman's "March to the Sea".  The purpose of the March was to transfer the burden of fighting the Civil War from the yeoman farmers who made up the bulk of the Confederate Army to the planter class of the coastal plains.  These planters were the people who benefited most from the institution of slavery, they were the ones who had ordered war to defend slavery, and they had so far been able to escape the kind of extraordinary hardship being visited on the Confederate soldiers.  Sherman marched from western Georgia through Atlanta and up the coast to Raleigh, North Carolina.  Blitzing through three states, he razed whole cities like Atlanta and Columbia, tore up railroad tracks, raided farms, and killed thousands of southerners.  Sherman's goal was explicitly to attack civilian infrastructure, and he deliberately avoided the only major Confederate Army in the Deep South, a force of 40,000 men under John Bell Hood, in order to focus on demolishing civilian infrastructure and pillaging large settlements.

Sherman used the terror he could cause by attacking civilians as a weapon against the Confederate State of America, and he was in this sense a terrorist.

In more recent history, American and British use of strategic bombing during World War II, particularly British use of strategic bombing which took place at night and had no serious chance of being precise whereas American planes bombed during the day when the target was still visible even when this meant higher rates of casualty for US pilots than their British counterparts, can be described as a terrorist tactic.  The chief example of this use of fear as a weapon of war is the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan.  It cannot be seriously argued that nuclear weapons were the most efficient way of destroying industrial targets in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  The reason the bomb was used was to convince the Japanese people and their leadership that the cost of continued resistance would be so high as to threaten the total annihilation of Japan and its people, and that the only responsible policy was to surrender before more people died.

Regardless of the morality (morality will be discussed later) of Roman punitive war, Sherman's March, or strategic bombing, it can be safely said that these acts fit our description of terrorism.  They used attacks on civilians and fear of future attacks on civilians as a weapon of war.

Furthermore, none of these acts of terrorism were committed by guerilla fighters, saboteurs, or any other asymmetrical military force.  So, if these acts are acts of terrorism and they not acts committed by guerilla forces, then we can deduce that terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same.  We can also deduce that because, at least in the cases of Sherman in the Civil War and the Allies in World War II, those committing acts of terrorism are in fact fighting for freedom that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are not necessarily different things, as will be elaborated upon later.  By defining and examining the history of terrorism, we can deductively disprove the mantra that one's man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  We can re-check this logic by proving this in reverse, by defining and examining the history of guerilla warfare.

A Definition of a Guerilla Warfare

A guerilla can be said to be any person who practices guerilla warfare.  A good definition of guerilla warfare comes from the original use of guerilla warfare in Spain during Napoleon's occupation of that country.  The original guerillas (Spanish for "Little War") used sabotage and espionage to weaken Napoleon's armies and attack French forces with ambushes by small bands of men, not engaging French armies openly.  Guerillas are known to use civilian populations as a weapons, they hide among civilians using them as human shields and try to turn civilians to their cause so as to deny refuge to their opponents.

We can see this today in Iraq.  The use of improvised explosive devices as opposed to assembling a standing army and engaging the enemy head on is classic guerilla warfare.  Booby traps f all kinds are standard fare for guerillas, and IEDs are a deadly modern twist on the old trick.  The insurgents also use other inexpensive ways of fighting the US and its allies.  The Guardian newspaper reported this August that a mysterious sniper called Juba has killed at least two US soldiers and wounded six others, and has become an effective symbol of the insurgency.

The United States employs its own guerilla warfare, particularly through Special Forces.  Special forces of the US military, units like DELTA, Navy Seals, and Army Rangers are trained to be mobile, flexible light infantry expert in sabotage, reconnaissance, booby traps, and ambushes.  Like most guerilla forces, they like to use the civilian population to their advantage, and so are usually able to speak many languages.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2005, 02:41:26 AM »

Predecessors of Modern Guerilla Warfare

Mao Zedong, not the Spanish irregulars, is the father of modern guerilla warfare.  While guerilla warfare is an old form of waging war against a stronger force, it was Mao who popularized it in the 20th Century, it was Mao who used it to achieve more impressive results than anyone else, and it was Mao who most clearly connected the use of guerilla warfare with its most effective circumstance for use: Use against a foreign occupying force.  Mao wrote in 1937 in his "What is Guerilla Warfare":

"In a war of revolutionary character, guerrilla operations are a necessary part. This is particularly true in war waged for the emancipation of a people who inhabit a vast nation. China is such a nation, a nation whose techniques are undeveloped and whose communications are poor. She finds herself confronted with a strong and victorious Japanese imperialism. Under these circumstances, the development of the type of guerrilla warfare characterized by the quality of mass is both necessary and natural."

Mao describes his brand of guerilla warfare as specifically anti-Imperialist.  To this day, nearly every guerilla leader fighting a foreign enemy tries to tie their cause to anti-Imperialism.  Mao's linking of anti-Imperialism and guerilla tactics was especially popular in Africa.  People like Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and Samora Michel in Mozambique led guerilla forces to wage war against the colonial powers.

The reason guerilla warfare was so successful in these national liberation movements was that even though guerilla forces are rarely able to defeat an enemy army on the battlefield, if they are facing a foreign force (as Mao did when he fought the Japanese) then by making the costs of occupation so onerous as to become prohibitive then the guerillas can force the withdrawal of the foreign force without ever winning a battle.  By convincing the foreign force, these African leaders, like Mao before them, achieved a military victory by achieving a political victory, a point to be elaborated upon later.

Now, guerilla tactics in the modern age have been less successful against non-foreign forces.  A foreign force has someplace to withdraw to.  A government that faces a domestic guerilla uprising has no place to withdraw to, and must stand and fight.  Because guerilla tactics are usually used by a weak force (If they were not weak, they would be using the same regular tactics that stronger nations use) the guerillas usually lose to their opponent if the guerillas cannot force withdrawal.

A good example of this is The Indochina Wars.  In the First Indochina War (1946-1954) the Viet Minh, a Vietnamese guerilla force, was able to drive France out of its colonial possession in Southeast Asia.  Then, in the Second Indochina War (1957-1975) the Viet Cong (in conjunction with the NVA) were able to drive out the American troops, another foreign force.  But after the Second Indochina War ended, the Communists launched a crackdown on the Montagnard people, an ethnic minority group in the interior woodlands of Vietnam that had aided the US effort there.  No resistance effort could succeed there as Vietnamese resistance efforts had before in large part because the Communists had nowhere to retreat to.  This was their country, too, and they could not very well fall back and decide continuing the fight was too costly.  The Montagnards were nearly wiped out (There were 3 million when Saigon fell, and only 700,000 today) in what Amnesty International labeled genocide.

So, guerilla warfare is not a recent phenomenon, but an invention of Spanish resistance to Napoleon.  In modern history, it has been linked to national liberation movements ever since Mao.  It uses irregular tactics, and hopes to wear down the opposition rather than defeating them outright.  How is guerilla warfare, specifically in the modern context, different from terrorism, or is it different at all?

The difference is that guerillas use the civilian population for advantage, whereas terrorists try to intimidate civilian populations for their advantage.  In Vietnam it was not the guerillas themselves that devised the most catchy name for this difference, it was the American government, which waged a relentless campaign for the "Hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people.  Guerillas want to gain the support of civilians to further their objectives; terrorists want to intimidate civilians to further their objectives.  They are the opposite in this regard.  This difference between terrorist and guerillas re-proves what was already shown above.  It was shown that terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same because it was shown that non-guerillas do use terrorist tactics and have been doing so since Rome, and if non-guerillas were using these tactics then terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same.  Now, by showing that there are guerillas who do not use terrorism, we again show that they are not one and the same.

Ever since Mao Zedong proclaimed his guerilla warfare "People's War" and Marxist insurgents throughout the third world mimicked this linking of guerilla tactics with anti-colonial resistance, guerilla soldiers have been euphemistically called freedom fighters (They have typically fought for national freedom, not individual freedom)

Reasons for the Confusion

The saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is a reference to the idea that there is no difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare; they are simply two different shades of asymmetrical war.  But if you accept the definition of terrorism and the definition of guerilla warfare I have provided, both of which are fairly non-controversial, then it quickly becomes clear that there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare.  So why is the confusion so common?  I believe there are two reasons that have combined to create the confusion in terms.

The first reason that contributes to this confusion is that many groups that employ terrorism also employ guerilla warfare.  Al Qaeda is a good example of this.  Al Qaeda obviously uses terrorist tactics, but they also use guerilla warfare tactics.  In Afghanistan, Al Qaeda members formed the backbone of the resistance to US forces.  In Iraq, Al Qaeda members provide manpower for the insurgency.  They don't simply use truck bombs and suicide attacks to fight the US either, they use sabotage, ambush, and booby traps to kill US troops; they are using classic guerilla tactics in addition to their terrorist attacks.

The second reason is that ever since Mao Zedong proclaimed his guerilla warfare "People's War" and Marxist insurgents throughout the third world mimicked this linking of guerilla tactics with anti-colonial resistance, guerilla soldiers have been euphemistically called freedom fighters (They have typically fought for national freedom, not individual freedom).  Thus, the guerilla and the freedom fighter have been confused in the public mind as being the same thing.

When put together, the public mind becomes confused.  They cannot always distinguish the terrorist act from the guerilla act because the same group is performing both.  Then, they have subconsciously merged the terms guerilla and freedom fighter.  The synthesis of these two confusions is that a terrorist is a guerrilla, and a guerilla is a freedom fighter, therefore a terrorist is a freedom fighter.  But this logic is flawed.  Simply because Al Qaeda uses both terrorism and guerilla warfare, this does not mean that terrorism is guerilla warfare.  Furthermore, simply because some people have tried to confuse the terms guerilla and freedom fighter does not mean we should accept this confusion.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2005, 02:44:28 AM »

Moral Implications

There are some significant moral questions that are raised by the fact that terrorism and guerilla warfare are two distinct forms of warfare. 

First, what can we learn about the morality of terrorism by listening to its defenders?  When they say that whether a person is a terrorist is purely a matter of perspective, they are implying that it is the cause of terrorism that matters, not the tactics.  If a terrorist can be a freedom fighter, and we assume that being a freedom fighter is a good thing, then it must also be true that there are causes so important, so critical, that they can justify acts of political violence that are intentionally targeted at civilians.  If this is true, then it is certainly a profound philosophical development.

The second question must be, then, is whether or not targeting civilians (terrorism) is ever justified?  I believe terrorism can be justified, but only under extreme circumstances.  Earlier, I mentioned examples of terrorism committed by the United States in history.  Many readers will assume that this is a condemnation of the United States, but there is another way of looking at the question.  Certainly, if a person believes that acts of political violence against civilians with the intent of using fear as a military weapon is always immoral, then one would have to condemn Sherman's March, for example.  However, we should not be so quick as this to endorse the categorical imperative.  Examine the level of devastation wreaked by traditional warfare in Northern Virginia and compare it to the level of devastation inflicted by Sherman's March.  Sherman lost only about 4,000 men in his entire campaign, whereas Grant lost 12,000 men (three times as many) in the Battle of Cold Harbor alone.  Clearly, many more people died in Grant's traditional, set piece strategy than in Sherman's terrorist campaign.

Can it be said that under some circumstances, terrorism can be far more humane than what most people would think of as noble warfare?  Another example that supports this idea is the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, which killed well over 100,000 people.  The goal was to intimidate the Japanese into surrender by a demonstration of superior firepower, again using fear as a weapon, a terrorist tactic.  One of the arguments most common in defense of this decision to use nuclear weapons is that it prevented a bloodier war on the Home Islands that would have killed far more than the 200,000 or so Japanese killed in the two atomic attacks.  Can it be said here, as in Sherman's March, that perhaps even extreme violence directed against civilians can be more humane under some extreme circumstances?  The answer, I think, is yes.  If more destruction can be avoided than is inflicted, then terrorism can be justified.  For example, the destruction that could have been imposed by a Nazi victory in World War II is so cartoonishly devastating that it becomes very easy to justify strategic bombing as much more humane than other possible courses of action, as long as you consider strategic bombing an essential part of any successful strategy to beat the Nazis, because it prevents far more destructive events in the future.

And finally, do tactics determine which side is right in a military conflict?  It is commonly accepted that they play a role, or there would be no point in the defenders of terrorists trying to pass themselves off as freedom fighters, would there?  Caleb Carr judges that they do.  He writes,

"The true indicator of which side caries the right… is not the relative merit of antebellum claims, but something much easier to assess and judge: The behavior of belligerents during actual hostilities."

He claims that every effort whether by Augustine or Locke or any other philosopher to define just war has failed because they cannot determine universal rules for justifying the initiation of war.  However, rules can be drawn up to govern the behavior of parties during wartime, the central one being that civilians must be treated as if they were a neutral party.

William Bennet would not entirely agree that the tactics used by each side determine who is right.  In his book Why We Fight, he writes that American military action against its enemies is justified based on the fact that our society is superior, and worth defending with violence if necessary.  Writes Bennet:

"Our country is something to be proud of, something to celebrate.  Why should we shrink from saying so?… that our open, tolerant, prosperous, peaceable society is the marvel of the ages."

For Bennet, fighting against Al Qaeda is not at its core about Al Qaeda's means, though Bennet does bemoan Al Qaeda's means, at its core this is an existential struggle about the right of a just society to exist in the face o a fascist opponent.

To take Bennett's argument a bit farther, some would say that the tactics of a military force are indicative of that force's moral worthiness.  For example, if I were to ask if Nazi Germany's conquest of Europe could be defended if they had not engaged in the massacre of Jews, had not bombed civilians in London, and had not killed million of innocent civilians along the way, most would have a hard time even comprehending such a counterfactual.  The reality is that a Nazi Army that did not do these things is not a Nazi Army; the thing that makes them so awful is the very fact that they tried to conquer a continent by brute force and exterminate the Jewish race.  The Nazis are a prime example of a nation whose military tactics were morally decadent because their aims and values were morally decadent.  Therefore, we might actually be able to gleam from the military tactics of a nation whether that nation is morally just.

But Bennet also notes as an aside, a point that is of great importance.  He mentions it only briefly in his book that I can tell; yet I think it is the most crystal clear reason why one man's terrorist is not just another man's freedom fighter:

"Even the word terrorist, according to the head of Reuters, a worldwide news agency, lacked objective meaning: 'We all know one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.  'We all know.'  The last time I looked, there was a crystal clear definition between a terrorist and a freedom fighter…As for the grotesque idea that bin laden was fighting for 'freedom,' try telling that to the people of Afghanistan, then groaning under the heel of his friends the Taliban.  So no, we didn't all know."

This passage contains, I think, the closest thing to a concise definition of the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.  After all this blurring of lines, indicating that a terrorist is a guerilla and a guerilla is a freedom fighter, therefore a terrorist is a freedom fighter, and after all the debate about what defines a terrorist and what defines a guerilla, we have not yet defined the most important term in the debate, but Bennet hints at it here.  What is the definition of a freedom fighter?  Certainly bin Laden is not a freedom fighter, but perhaps the most convincing reason he is not one can't be found in a comparison of guerilla warfare to terrorism (Though that is a distinction that must be drawn nonetheless, for this debate and for others).

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is that a freedom fighter fights for freedom.  A terrorist may fight for freedom, Sherman certainly did.  A guerilla may fight for freedom as well, and the men of the Northern Alliance did.  But being a guerilla or a terrorist does not make you a freedom fighter.  You are a freedom fighter if and only if you fight for freedom.

Herein lies my answer to the question of whether the morality of means determines who is right and wrong in war: Right and wrong in war are determined by the cause for which one fights.  If Al Qaeda, which wishes to impose radical Islam on the world, fought nobly and justly and made every effort to spare civilians, and America mercilessly bombed civilians in Afghanistan, I would still support the United States in that war.  I would prefer, as I think most Americans would, to defeat Al Qaeda without inflicting mass civilian casualties, but if the choice was between an Al Qaeda that spares civilians in pursuit of radical ends, and a US that does not take civilian life into account while in pursuit of the goal of self-defense, I would prefer that the US win in spite of its brutal tactics.

Conclusions

Committing acts of terrorism is not a subjective judgment.  Terrorism is a definable military phenomenon.  It is a less moral form of warfare than others, and can only be justified in the most extreme circumstances.  Terrorism is definably different than guerilla warfare, and the two phenomena should not be confused.  Neither a terrorist nor a guerilla is inherently a freedom fighter.  Being a freedom fighter or not is independent of your tactics, it is a matter of cause.  The core definition of a freedom fighter, and what separates a freedom fighter from a terrorist, is that a freedom fighter fights for freedom.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2005, 07:07:10 AM »

The only problem is that people have different perceptions of 'freedom'.

Just look at headscarves for islamic women.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2005, 02:42:20 PM »

The only problem is that people have different perceptions of 'freedom'.

Just look at headscarves for islamic women.

Ah, so define freedom and freedom fighter then?  Good idea.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2005, 04:57:40 PM »

Very good paper here, John. Smiley Interesting if somewhat spooky conclusions. Wink And I would second what hughento said: define your terms. Kiki
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2005, 08:05:03 PM »

The only problem is that people have different perceptions of 'freedom'.

Just look at headscarves for islamic women.

Ah, so define freedom and freedom fighter then?  Good idea.

Indeed. Only takes a paragraph, makes it a lot better Smiley

Otherwise, it's well written, raises some good and unusual points, and is certainly readable. I don't know how to handle some of it, but that's a positive.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2005, 08:25:40 PM »

I was just reread the "British lose America" section of The March of Folly and note that terrorism charges could have been applied to those Americans fighting against the British.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2005, 11:40:39 PM »

First, the ticky tack stuff - under <A Definition of a Guerilla Warfare> you have the line:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You need an 'o' for the word 'of'

-----

I think the American revolution could be considered another example of guerilla tactics.  Though we also fought stand up open field battles, many of our successes were from lesser battles along the way.

Consider the crossing of the Delaware from a slightly different angle:

Durring a de facto truce for a holiday considered holy by both sides in the conflict, the insurgents launched a sneak attack on the Hessian forces.  After slaughtering their enemies while suffering no causualties of their own, they declared that "God must be on their side".

Secondly, with regards to Iraq; I do not think that most of the insurgency is made up of the terrorists.  I think that there are terrorists there, and they work hard to provoke both sides into escalating the conflict (hence many of the brutalities such as beheadings).  I think it is something of a multi-polar battle.  On one side you have US forces and allies, then you have the Iraqi government who welcomes our help somewhat and wants to be able to handle it on their own, then you have the insurgents who want us gone and to have self determination, then there are the islamisists (many of whom are foriegners who came in across the unsecured border) who seek a pan-islamic state, then there are the terrorsts who wish not only a pan-islamic state - but also to escalate the conflict into a war of peoples in a grand jiahd/crusade.

I noticed by it's conspicuious absence no mention of the contras - for whom many on the right considered freedom fighters despite their frequent targeting of civilians.

Still, just war theory can be a messy subject, and is further complicated by trying to figure out how you define freedom, or even a 'just cause'.  (this is especially true in that it is not uncommon for people to use terms like 'freedom' as a catchphrase, rather than actually seeking the self-determination of peoples.  Places like Saudi Arabia are not democracies by any measure, are well known for brutality toward their own citizenry, endorse a form of radical Islam, and give money to certain groups (Such as Hammas) which we consider, quite possibly justifiabley, as terrorists.   And yet we do not even embargo the Saudis, much less invade.

Rants aside, all in all a pretty well written paper.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2005, 11:54:48 PM »


I noticed by it's conspicuious absence no mention of the contras - for whom many on the right considered freedom fighters despite their frequent targeting of civilians.



James, how is John Ford?  You and I know who they were (and remember that when when the Sandinistas finally allowed elections, they were defeated).  This wasn't part of his life like it was ours.

That said, your point is absolutely valid.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2005, 02:47:07 AM »

Well, I appreciate all the feedback, its very encouraging.

As for some of the specific points, I am not bothered by the ticky tacky stuff, in fact I especially appreciate the ticky tacky stuff.  I'll be spending my weekend doing a lot of citations and grammar, all ticky tacky, and all stuff that turns an A to a B or a B to a C if it isn't done.

As for the Contras and the American revoution, they're good example, and I should try to work in the Contras because they are central to the debate about terrorism.

And WMS, yeah some of the conclusions are unusual and unexpected.  I realized after I had defined terrorism, that there were things that fit the definition that we don't usually think of as terrorism.  And I can't very well say World War II was an immoral war because of daylight bombing killing civilians, can I?  So I was essentialy stuck endorsing terrorism or becoming a pacifist. Cheesy  Which did you think I'd choose? Wink
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2005, 03:45:13 AM »

I am extremely picky on details, but don't expect that much on content, because it looks pretty good already (ie, I'm not going to think up counter-examples unless they're pretty obvious).  I am also not going to dot your i's and cross your t's either.

The strategy of terrorism uses acts of violence against civilians and threats of future acts against civilians of violence to compel those civilians to cease supporting their governments and its policies.

Better wording would be:

"The strategy of terrorism uses acts of violence against civilians and threats of future acts of violence against those same civilians to compel them to cease supporting their governments and its policies."

In more recent history, American and British use of strategic bombing during World War II, particularly British use of strategic bombing which took place at night and had no serious chance of being precise whereas American planes bombed during the day when the target was still visible even when this meant higher rates of casualty for US pilots than their British counterparts, can be described as a terrorist tactic. 

This sentence reads badly and I would suggest spliting it into two parts, getting rid of the American line which weakens the overall point:

"In more recent history, American and British use of strategic bombing during World War II, can be described as a terrorist tactic.  In particular, the British use of strategic bombing which took place at night and had no serious chance of being precise was precisely utilized as a method to drive terror into the hearts of the German citizenry."

The chief example of this use of fear as a weapon of war is the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan. 

I might refer back to WWII, adding this and also changing verb tense to relate to the first sentence above and the sentences below:

"The chief example of this use of fear in World War II as a weapon of war was the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan. "

We can also deduce that because, at least in the cases of Sherman in the Civil War and the Allies in World War II, those committing acts of terrorism are in fact fighting for freedom that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are not necessarily different things, as will be elaborated upon later. 

Get rid of the "as will be elaborated upon later", even if it's meant to be there to pad the paper length.  Smiley

That's all for now.  I'll get through the rest of it tomorrow.  Content looks fine so far.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2005, 03:28:45 PM »

And WMS, yeah some of the conclusions are unusual and unexpected.  I realized after I had defined terrorism, that there were things that fit the definition that we don't usually think of as terrorism.  And I can't very well say World War II was an immoral war because of daylight bombing killing civilians, can I?  So I was essentialy stuck endorsing terrorism or becoming a pacifist. Cheesy  Which did you think I'd choose? Wink

Ah, reality strikes again. Smiley No, you can't say that, for that would be an insane example of moral relativism. Becoming a pacifist, clearly - All War is Wrong! No Matter What! Period! In this case, endorsing 'terrorism' is clearly the choice for you. And me too. Now let's watch someone take this out of context and bash us as warmongers Kiki
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2005, 02:01:14 PM »

By onvincing the foreign force, these African leaders, like Mao before them, achieved a military victory by achieving a political victory, a point to be elaborated upon later.

Now, guerilla tactics in the modern age have been less successful against non-foreign forces.

Once again, the "point to be elaborated upon later" is not needed.

The "Now" in the second sentence is also unnecessary.

No resistance effort could succeed there as Vietnamese resistance efforts had before in large part because the Communists had nowhere to retreat to.  

This sentence confuses me.  I think I know the point you're trying to get across, but the language is rather tortured here.  Needs a rewrite.

This difference between terrorist and guerillas re-proves what was already shown above.  It was shown that terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same because it was shown that non-guerillas do use terrorist tactics and have been doing so since Rome, and if non-guerillas were using these tactics then terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same.  Now, by showing that there are guerillas who do not use terrorism, we again show that they are not one and the same.

I get what you are saying here, but it needs to be rewritten so it doesn't sound so circular in logic by the constant use of "show".  You shouldn't have to show us what is being proven "true", it should simply be asserted as such.

Ever since Mao Zedong proclaimed his guerilla warfare "People's War" and Marxist insurgents throughout the third world mimicked this linking of guerilla tactics with anti-colonial resistance, guerilla soldiers have been euphemistically called freedom fighters (They have typically fought for national freedom, not individual freedom)

Not needed.  Especially since you repeat the sentence three paragraphs below.  Smiley
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2005, 02:26:35 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2005, 02:33:23 PM by Sam Spade (GM) »

After all this blurring of lines, indicating that a terrorist is a guerilla and a guerilla is a freedom fighter, therefore a terrorist is a freedom fighter, and after all the debate about what defines a terrorist and what defines a guerilla, we have not yet defined the most important term in the debate, but Bennet hints at it here. 

This sentence should be rewritten (my suggestion below):

"After all this blurring of lines, from the assertion that a terrorist is a guerrila and a guerrila is a freedom fighter leading to the conclusion that a terrorist is a freedom fighter, and after all the debate about what defines a terrorist and what defines a guerrila, we have not yet defined the most important term in the debate.  Bennett hints at it in the passage above."

Certainly bin Laden is not a freedom fighter, but perhaps the most convincing reason he is not one can't be found in a comparison of guerilla warfare to terrorism (Though that is a distinction that must be drawn nonetheless, for this debate and for others).

Suggested rewrite:

"Certainly bin Laden is not a freedom fighter, but perhaps the most convincing reason for this claim can't be found in a comparison of guerilla warfare to terrorism (though that is a distinction that must be drawn nonetheless, for this debate and for others).

Otherwise, that is all.  Good paper, btw.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2006, 07:38:18 AM »

I've read a fictional novel from Caleb Carr called the Alienist. Do you know whether that is the same guy as the one you cites here? (It's about a child transvestite prostitute killer in late nineteenth century New York).

The only comment I can think of right now is really, that the whole thing eventually boils down to moral relativism or, iy you so want, the definition of freedom. If freedom can be defined objectively, then you can differentiate between freedom fighters and simple terrorists. I don't know, I would have put a paragragh saying that in the paper, something like "I will use the standard western definition" or borrow the line from the constitution, maybe?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2006, 08:12:53 PM »

I've read a fictional novel from Caleb Carr called the Alienist. Do you know whether that is the same guy as the one you cites here? (It's about a child transvestite prostitute killer in late nineteenth century New York).

Its the same guy.  I have no idea if his novels are any good, but I enjoyed this book on terrorism he wrote.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2006, 09:58:19 AM »

I've read a fictional novel from Caleb Carr called the Alienist. Do you know whether that is the same guy as the one you cites here? (It's about a child transvestite prostitute killer in late nineteenth century New York).

Its the same guy.  I have no idea if his novels are any good, but I enjoyed this book on terrorism he wrote.

The one I read was pretty good and had Teddy Roosevelt in it too. Smiley I didn't agree with the message, but still.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.092 seconds with 13 queries.