Terrorism and Homeland Security PDF

NOTICE: The materials provided in this E-reserve may be protected by copyright law. (Title 17 US Code) You may print a copy of course e­ reserve materials for your personal study, reading, research, or education. Reproducing, distributing, modifying and/or making derivative works based on the materi...

NOTICE: The materials provided in this E-reserve may be protected by copyright law. (Title 17 US Code) You may print a copy of course e­ reserve materials for your personal study, reading, research, or education. Reproducing, distributing, modifying and/or making derivative works based on the materials posted to this e-reserve for any other purposes may be an infringement of the owner's copyright and subject you to civil and criminal liability as well as potential action by the University.  CcNGAGE ~earn;B Describe the various schools of revolutionary thought in the mid-nineteenth century. Self- \.. 0 Check > > What impact did dynamite have on modern terrorism? Explain the surprising relationship between nationalism and anarchism. ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE Noam Chomsky Examines Terrorism and Morality Noam Chomsky (2002) approaches terrorism about what "we" do to "them." Citing just-war with two critical questions: (1) How should ter- doctrine, Chomsky says the response to terrorism rorism be defined? and (2) What is the proper cannot be terrorism. A moral truism states that response to it? He says that the problem of de- any illegal activity is immoral no matter how a fining terrorism is complex, but there are many state wishes to justify its response to an event. straightforward governmental responses. Almost The definition of terrorism provides a moral all of these definitions cast terrorism within a constant. For example, if an official definition moral framework; that is, terrorism becomes states that terrorism is the use of violence against a criminal act where innocents are victimized. innocent people to change political behavior, These circumstances require a government to act; a state is morally obligated to live within the yet, the response frequently evokes a paradox. bounds of this definition. It cannot use violence Governments define terrorist acts as immoral, but against innocents to force its political will. If ter- they tend to respond by acting outside the bounds rorism is a crime, the response to it must not be of morality. They justify their actions by citing the criminal if the response is to be morally legiti- original immoral act of a terrorist group. mate. The contradiction comes, Chomsky con- Chomsky finds this approach unacceptable. cludes, because the United States operates within The same moral framework that allows a society a moral definition of terrorism only when its to define an illegal act as terrorism requires that own interests are served. As a result, oppression, the response to terrorism be conducted within the violence, and illegal actions are rarely defined as bounds of morality. Terrorism, Chomsky says, terrorism when they are condoned by the United is something "they" do to "us," and it is never States or its allies.  Chapter 1 The Shifting Definition of Terrorism 15 Terrorism and Revolution in Russia, 1881-1921 The historiography of the Russian Revolution and the fighting that took place after- ward have changed drastically since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Histories writ- ten during the Cold War tended to be either pro- or anti-communist. As documents and archives became available to Western writers after the collapse of the Soviet Union views of Russia changed, and new histories and biographies emerged. Sheila Fitzpatrick (2001) views the revolution from a perspective that begins with revolt and ends several years after the rise of Communism as Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) Joseph Stalin: The dicta- purged and executed his enemies in the 1930s. Robert Service (1995) concludes a tor who succeeded Lenin. three-volume biography of Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) with a picture of a ruthless Stalin solidified Com- munist control of Russia man who forged policy by force of will. _Service's Lenin is a man who was not inter- through a secret police ested in power for its own sake and who genuinely wanted to create a better socialist organization. He purged state. Confrontations forced him to compromise in the end. Katerina Clark (1998) the government of all sus- presents the tremendous cultural shifts from 1913 to 1931 by focusing on St. Peters- pected opponents in the burg from late czarist times until Stalin consolidated power. Christopher Read (1996) 1930s, killing thousands of people. divides this era into two periods-the collapse of czarist Russia and the building of the new socialist order. Service (2005) brings another perspective, completely rewrit- Vladimir Lenin: The Rus- ing the history of Russia from the fall of the czar to the rise of Vladimir Putin. sian revolutionary who At the time of the revolution, however, the West viewed the communist state with led a second revolution in October, bringing the horror. They equated communism with anarchism and revolution. Class revolution Communists to power. became a reality in Russia, and the West feared that Russia would export revolu- Lenin led the Communists tion through terrorism. Late nineteenth-century Russia differed significantly from the in a civil war and set up other great powers of Europe. Class distinctions between nobles and peasants were a dictatorship to enforce virtually the same as they had been before the French Revolution, and Russian peas- Communist Party rule in Russia. ants were beset by poverty. Industry had come to some of Russia's cities, but Russia's economic and governmental systems were not adequate to handle the changes. Czar Vladimir Putin: (b. 1952) Alexander II (ruled from 1855 to 1881) vowed to make changes in the system, but a former KGB (Soviet when he attempted to do so, he found himself in the midst of revolutionary terrorism. secret police) officer and second president of the Russian Federation from 1999 to 2008. He served The People's Will as Russia's prime minister Three groups in Russia after 1850 felt that they could reform and modernize the after his second presiden- Russian state, but they disagreed about how to do it. One group, whose views Czar tial term and return to the presidency in 2012. Alexander shared, wanted to modernize Russia from the top down. Another group, the intellectuals, wanted Russia to become a liberal Western democracy. Violent an- archists took another path. They believed that Russian problems could be settled through revolution. Narodnaya Volya (the People's Will) advocated violent socialist revolution. When it launched a campaign of revolutionary terrorism in the 1870s, it faced confrontation with conservative elements such as the church, police, and mili- tary. Members of the People's Will came to believe that it was necessary to terrorize these conservative organizations into submission. The motivations behind the People's Will evolved from Russian revolutionary thought. According to Laqueur (1999, pp. 15-16), the philosophy of anarchist terrorism in Russia was embodied by Mikhail Bakunin and Sergey Nechaev. Their revolutionary thought developed separately before they met each other in the 1860s, when they formed an intellectual union. Both spoke of revolt against the czar, and both endorsed violence as the means. Yet, even in the nation that would experience a violent anarchist campaign and eventually a communist revolution, Bakunin and Nechaev basically stuck to rhetoric. Although they were ideologically linked to anarchism in western Europe, they were distinct from their Western supporters. Russian anarchists were writing for a 16 PART 1 Terrorism in Historical and Social Contexts general population in the hope of sparking a democratic revolution. Laqueur says that their significance lies in their influence on later revolutionaries and the violence and assassinations those later revolutionaries committed. They were not radical revo- lutionaries in Laqueur's view. Sheila Fitzpatrick (2001, pp. 19-21) presents a different view. Russian economic progress dominated the last part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth cen- turies. The problem was the attitudes of peasants and industrial workers. According to Marx, agrarian peasants did not have enough motivation to join the proletariat in revolution, but Fitzpatrick says that Russia was different. Revolutionary sympathy was high among the peasantry, giving them a closer relationship with many urban workers. Revolutionary rhetoric and writings had touched the lower classes, but Rus- sian economic prosperity had not. The lower classes were receptive to revolution, although as Christopher Read (1996, p. 294) illustrates, no single theme dominated the revolutionaries until it was imposed by the state under Lenin. Regardless of the debate, the writings of the Russians were powerful. Nechaev (reprint 1987, pp. 68-71) laid down the principles of revolution in the "Catechism of the Revolutionary." His spirit was reflected in writings of the late twentieth century. Rubenstein (1987) compared the "catechism" to Carlos Marighella's The Minimanual ofthe Urban Guerrilla and found no essential differences. Both Laqueur and Rubenstein believe that Nechaev's influence lives on. Bakunin (1866, pp. 65-68) believed that the Russian government had been established on thievery. In "Revolution, Terrorism, Banditry," he argues that the only way to break the state's hold on power is revolt. Such rhetoric did not endear Nechaev and Bakunin to the czar, but it did make them popular with later revolutionaries. Laqueur (1999) concludes that such revolutionary pronouncements correctly belong with Russian expressionist literature, not terrorist philosophy. These philosophies guided the People's Will. They murdered the police chief of Moscow and went on a campaign of bombing and killing. In May 1881, they suc- ceeded in striking their ultimate target: They killed Czar Alexander II. Ironically, this brought about their downfall. The People's Will was eliminated, Alexander III (ruled from 1881 to 1894) ended all attempts at reform, and revolutionaries went under- ground. Nicholas II (ruled from 1894 to 1917), who succeeded Alexander III, was a man who would be toppled by revolutionary forces. Czar Nicholas and the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 Nicholas faced his first revolution in 1905, after his army lost a war to Japan. In addition to losing the war, Russia was consumed with economic problems and bu- reaucratic inefficiency. A group of unemployed workers began demonstrations in St. Petersburg, and some enlisted men in the Russian navy mutinied. Their actions were brutally suppressed by Nicholas's army and police forces, feeding the spirit of revolution that burned below the surface. Russian revolutionaries needed another national disaster to create the atmosphere for revolution. It came in 1914, when Russia entered World War I (1914-1918). By 1917, the Russian people were tired of their economic woes and their czar. In workers councils (or February, a general strike in St. Petersburg turned into a revolution. Unlike in 1905, the soviets): The lowest- Russian Army joined the workers, and a new Russian government was formed. They level legislative body in envisioned a period of capitalist economic expansion that would save the beleaguered the Soviet Union following the October Revolution. Russian economy. Workers councils (or soviets) were established in major Russian cities. Soviet is the Russian word The primary mistake of the February revolutionaries was that they kept Russia for "council." in the war, a decision that was unpopular with the Russian people. This had two  Chapter 1 The Shifting Definition of Terrorism 17 immediate ramifications. It created unrest at home, and it inspired the Germans to seek a way to remove Russia from World War I. The Germans found their answer in Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who orchestrated a second revolution in October 1917 and removed Russia from the war. Lenin and Trotsky The Russian Revolution utilized terrorism in a new manner, and this had an impact on the way people viewed terrorism in the twentieth century. Lenin and one of his lieutenants, Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), believed that terrorism should be used as an Leon Trotsky: A Russian instrument for overthrowing middle-class, or bourgeois, governments. Once power revolutionary who led for- eign affairs in Stalin's gov- was achieved, Lenin and Trotsky advocated terrorism as a means of controlling in- ernment and later became ternal enemies and as a method for coping with international strife. Russia was very the commander of the weak after the revolution. It faced foreign intervention and was torn by civil war. By Red Army. He espoused threatening to export terrorism, Lenin and Trotsky hoped to keep their enemies, pri- terrorism as a means for marily Western Europe and the United States, at bay. spreading White revolu- With their threat, Lenin and Trotsky instilled the fear of Communist revolution in tion. He was thrown out of the Communist Party the minds of many people in the West. To some, terrorism and Communism became for opposing Stalin and synonymous. Though the Russians, and later the Soviets, were not good at carrying was assassinated by Com- insurrection to other lands, Western leaders began to fear that Communist terrorists munist agents in Mexico were on the verge of toppling democratic governments. Despite Lenin and his succes- City in 1940. sor, Joseph Stalin, having the most success with another form of terror-murdering their own people-fear of Communist insurrection lasted well into the twentieth cen- tury, and some people still fear it. Even as the Soviet Union tottered into dissolution, Western analysts still saw terrorism through the lens of Western-Soviet confronta- tion (see Livingstone and Arnold, 1986; Sterling, 1986). Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer (2006, pp. 20-23) believes that this perspective hinders the ability to compre- hend terrorism today. In fairness to analysts of the Cold War, Lenin's victory and subsequent writings have inspired terrorists from 1917 to the present. Although Communist terrorism was not part of an orchestrated conspiracy, it did influence behavior. Some terrorists scoured the works of Lenin and Trotsky, as well as other Russian revolutionaries, to formulate theories, tactics, and ideologies. Although not a simple conspiracy of evil, this influence was real and remains today. r > How did revolutionary thought develop in czarist Russia? Self- 0 Check > > Describe the two revolutions under Nicholas II. How did Lenin andTrotsky influence the direction of revolutionary thought? Selective Terrorism and the Birth of the Irish Republic In August 1969, the British Army was ordered to increase its presence in Northern Ireland in an effort to quell a series of riots. Although the army had maintained bases in Northern Ireland for some time, rioting in Londonderry and Belfast was suddenly far beyond the control of local police and the handful of British regular soldiers sta- tioned in the area. On August 18, 1969, British Army reinforcements began arriving, 18 PART 1 Terrorism in Historical and Social Contexts Michael Scheuer (2006, pp. 20-23 ), former director of the CIA's bin Laden unit, be- lieves that the focus on history is often misplaced. There are two types of terrorist "experts," he contends-retired governmental and military officials and informed commentators. The latter group is made up of academics and journalists. Scheuer believes that these people are far from experts because not only do they fail to understand history, but they are also stuck in a time frame. Media consciousness about terrorism developed and grew in the 1970s. Two issues dominated terror- ism at that time: the Cold War and violence around Israel and Palestine. Expertise , about terrorism came from studying both the emergence of theory, with its roots in the West, and the anticolonial movements associated with the early part of the Cold War. Terrorism was a historical phenomenon, an outcome of confrontations that grew from the influence of Western history. Ideological groups such as the ; Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Brigades came from political battlefields. Na- tionalistic groups such as the Puerto Rican Armed Forces of National Liberation {FALN) and the Basque Nation and Liberty (ETA) were motivated by patriotism, but they adopted leftist agendas and the tactics of leftist terrorists.. The anti-West- ern attitude of Palestinian groups like Hezbollah and the Abu Nidal Organization was tinged with a left-wing philosophy and a style of operation similar to their counterparts in ideological and nationalistic movements. Western expertise was honed over two decades, from 1970 to 1990, Scheuer says, and it has very little to do with terrorism today. Jihadist terrorism comes from a different tradition. It does not rely on politi- cal ·and theoretical developments in the West, and although jihadists frequently embrace the cause of the Palestinians, they do not seek to establish an independent Palestinian state or replace a destroyed Israel with a new Arab country. They come from a religious tradition dating from the twelfth century in the Western calendar, and they operate in a manner far different from terrorist groups in the late twen- tieth century. Expertise on the old-style groups is not applicable to the jihadists, Scheuer concludes. So-called terrorism experts are outdated. They are stuck in the past and examine modern terrorism through a perspective "yellowed with age.". Consider these issues in terms of future developments: Unlike most criminals, terrorists study the past to develop tactical models. Is there merit in studying the history of terrorism? If so, what is the time frame. for beginning such study? Does the history of terrorism teach lessons across cultures? Are there certain aspects of terrorism that remain constant across time and location? How is the form of twenty-first-century terrorism different from its previous manifestations? How is it similar? hoping to avoid a long-term conflict. Their hopes were in vain. The meaning ofter- rorism in Ireland changed with history. Unlike revolutionary France, Europe in 1848, and the differing forms of terrorism in Russia, terrorism in Ireland developed over a number of centuries {Lee, 1983 ). The Irish have never ruled their island as a single political entity, and they have experienced some type of foreign domination since a series of Viking incursions in 800 CE {Costigan, 1980; Cahill, 2003 ). The Vikings were driven out in the eleventh z. Smith Reynolds Library Wake Forest University  Chapter 1 The Shifting Definition of Terrorism 19 century, only to be replaced by invading Normans in the twelfth century (Simms, 2000). England began to colonize the northern part of Ireland in the late 1500s. This not only brought conflict between the colonizers and the colonized, it created a di- rect collision between Protestants and Catholics (Bradshaw, 1978; 0 Corrain, 2000; Curtis, 2000, pp. 16-18, orig. 1936; Herren and Brown, 2002). Finally, after the United Kingdom was formed in 1801, Ireland was literally absorbed by Great Britain (see Cronin, 1984; Foster, 2001, pp. 134-172). This last act created a new type of Irish person, the Republican, a citizen who wanted to be free of the British in a Republic of Ireland. The Early Irish Republican Army By the twentieth century, the struggle in Ireland had become a matter of divisions between Unionists, people who wanted to remain in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Republicans, people who wanted independence. A host of other conflicts were associated with this confrontation, but the main one was the Unionist-Republican struggle. The Unionists often had the upper hand because they could call on support from the British-sponsored police and military forces. The Re- publicans had no such advantage, and they searched for an alternative. Costigan (1980) believes that the Republican military solution originated when the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) formed in the 1850s. Support came from ex- iles and emigrants around the world. Irish Catholics had emigrated from their home- land to the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, but they never forgot the people they left behind. Irish immigrants in New York City created the Fenian Brotherhood as a financial relief organization for relatives in the old country. After the U.S. Civil War, some Irish soldiers returning from the U.S. Army decided to take the struggle for emancipation back to Ireland. Having fought to free the slaves, they believed that they should continue the struggle and free Ireland. They sponsored a failed revolt in 1867, and others launched a dynamite campaign in London a decade and a half later. Although the IRB pledged to work peacefully, it gradually evolved into a revolutionary organization. J. Bowyer Bell (1974) has written the definitive treatise on the origins and devel- opment of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). He states that it began with a campaign of violence sponsored by the IRB in the late 1800s. Spurred on by increased national- istic feeling in the homeland and the hope of home rule, the IRB waged a campaign of bombing and assassination from 1870 until 1916. Its primary targets were Unionists and British forces that supported the Unionist cause. Among their greatest adversaries Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC): The police force was the British-backed police force in Ireland, the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). established by the United The activities of the IRB frightened Irish citizens who wanted to remain united Kingdom in Ireland. It was with Great Britain. For the most part, these people were Protestant and middle class, modeled after the Lon- and they lived in the northern counties. They gravitated toward their trade unions don Metropolitan Police, and social organizations, among them the Orange Lodges, to counter growing IRB but it represented British sympathy and power. They enjoyed the sympathy of the British Army's officer corps. interests. After the Free State was formed, the RIC They also controlled the RIC. became the Royal Ulster The Fenians of the IRB remained undaunted by Unionist sentiment. Although Constabulary (RUC). In Irish Unionists seemed in control, the IRB had two trump cards. First, IRB leadership turn, the RUC gave way was dominated by men who believed each generation had to produce warriors who to the Police Service of would fight for independence. Some of these leaders, as well as their followers, were Northern Ireland (PSNI) as part of Irish and British quite willing to be martyred to keep republicanism alive. In addition, the IRB had an attempts to bring peace organization. It not only served as a threat to British power, it also provided the basis to Northern Ireland after for the resurgence of Irish culture. 1995. ~ ' ,. :,. ,. / ,.... ~ ~ 20 PART 1 Terrorism in Historical and Social Contexts The Easter Rising At the turn of the twentieth century, no person embodied Irish culture more than Patrick Pearse (1879-1916). The headmaster of an Irish school, Pearse was an in- spirational romantic. He could move crowds to patriotism and inspire resistance to British policies. He was a hero among Irish Americans, and they sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support his cause. He told young Irish boys and girls about their heritage, he taught them Gaelic, and he inspired them to be militantly proud of Supreme Council of the being Irish. He was also a member of the Supreme Council of the IRB. When the pos- IRB: The command cen- sibility of home rule was defeated in the British parliament, Republican eyes turned ter of several Republican to Pearse. terrorist organizations, including the Irish Repub- By 1916, the situation in Ireland had changed. The British had promised home lican Army, the Official rule to Ireland when World War I (1914-1918) came to an end. Whereas most peo- Irish Republican Army, ple in Ireland believed the British, Unionists and Republicans secretly armed for a and the Provisional Irish civil war between the north and the south. They believed a fight was inevitable if the Republican Army. The British granted home rule, and each side was determined to dominate the govern- name was transposed from the Irish Republican ment of a newly independent Ireland. Some Republicans were not willing to wait Brotherhood. for home rule. With British attention focused on Germany, leaders of the IRB believed that it was time for a strike against the Unionists and their British supporters. On Easter in 1916, Patrick Pearse and James Connolly (1868-1916) led a revolt in Dublin. Pearse believed that the revolt was doomed from the start, but he also believed that it was necessary to sacrifice his life to keep the Republican spirit alive. Connolly was a more pragmatic socialist who fought because he believed a civil war was inevitable. The 1916 Easter Rising enjoyed local success because it surprised everyone. Pearse and Connolly took over several key points in Dublin with a few thousand armed followers. From the halls of the General Post Office, Pearse announced that the revolutionaries had formed an Irish republic, and he asked the Irish to follow him. The British, outraged by what they saw as treachery in the midst of a larger war, sent troops to Dublin. The city was engulfed in a week of heavy fighting. Whereas Pearse and Connolly came to start a popular revolution, the British came to fight a war. In a few days, Dublin was devastated by British artillery. Pearse rec- ognized the futility of the situation and asked for terms. Bell (1974) points out the interesting way Pearse chose to approach the British: He sent a message using a new title for himself, commanding general of the IRA, to the general in charge of the Brit- ish forces. The IRB had transformed itself into an army: the IRA. If Connolly and Pearse hoped to be greeted as liberators, they greatly misjudged the mood of Ireland. Had the British played to Irish sympathy, they might have stopped Sinn Fein: The political violent republicanism. Their actions, however, virtually empowered Sinn Fein. The party of Irish Republicans. British handed down several dozen death sentences for the Easter Rising. Hundreds Critics claim it represents more people received lengthy prison sentences. Pearse became an Irish legend. Stand- terrorists. Republicans say it represents their political ing in front of a firing squad, he gave an impassioned plea for Irish independence. interests. Despite the de- Connolly, who had been badly wounded, was tied to a chair and placed before a firing bate, Sinn Fein historically squad. Public sympathy shifted to the rebels. has had close connections Two important people managed to escape the purge. Eamon de Valera (18 82-1975) with extremism and vio- lence. received a prison sentence instead of death because of questions about his national- ity. He had been born in New York City and was brought to Ireland at an early age. Michael Collins (1890-1922), who was in a cell where prisoners slated for execution were being segregated from those selected for internment, walked to the other side of the cell and found himself among the internment group. It saved his life. De Valera would emerge as a revolutionary and political leader, and Collins would become the leader of the IRA.  Chapter 1 The Shifting Definition of Terrorism 21 ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE State Repression Edward Herman (1983) says terrorism should be and police forces. When the amount of human defined in terms of state repression. During the suffering from these dictatorships is compared to Cold War, the United States supported several violence caused by insurgent terrorism, the pain Latin American dictatorships because the dic- caused by modern terrorism shrinks to insignifi- tatorships were anti-communist. These govern- cance. The "real terror network," Herman argues, ments, which had some of the worst human rights is found in repressive government. University of records in history, routinely jailed, tortured, and Virginia sociologist Donald Black (2004) sum- executed political opponents. The United States marizes the paradox evident in Herman's earlier not only ignored the repression, it also funded work. Counterterrorism, he says, is more violent the activities and trained the repressive military than terrorism. The Black and Tan War, 1920-1921 Sinn Fein, the political party of Irish republicanism, continued its activities in spite of the failure of the Easter Rising. When World War I ended, many of the Republicans were released. There were several moderates in Ireland, represented by the Parliamen- tary Party, and they sought to reopen the issue of home rule. They believed that this was the only nonviolent way to approach the Irish question. Bew (1999) says that the moderates were also willing to cede the northern province, Ulster, to the Protestants who wished to remain united with Great Britain. If the Protestants were forced into a united Ireland, they reasoned, violence would continue. Bew believes Sinn Fein took advantage of the moderate position and championed the cause of a united Ireland. The ideologues of republicanism expressed themselves in extremist terms. They not only rejected home rule but demanded a completely Free State devoid of any British participation in Irish politics. For Sinn Fein, anything Free State: The given to but a united Ireland was out of the question. The British government also vacillated. the newly formed Repub- lic of Ireland after Irish Conservatives, especially the military officer corps, were reluctant to abandon the independence. north either to home rule or to an independent Ireland, whereas others sought to solve the Irish problem with some sort of home rule. Bew argues that Sinn Fein moved into the arena by discrediting the Parliamentary Party. Moderation fell by the wayside as extreme republicanism increased. Selective Terror Michael Collins was appalled by the amateur tactics of the Easter Rising. Revolution, he believed, could be successful, but it would not develop from a popular uprising. It needed to be systematic, organized, and ruthless. After being released from prison as part of a general amnesty, Collins studied the tactics of Russia's People's Will and the writings of earlier anarchists and terrorists. Collins developed a strategy called selec- tive terrorism. Devising a plan that would later influence terrorists as diverse as the proto-Israeli group lrgun Zvai Leumi and Ernesto "Che" Guevara's Communist revo- lutionaries in Cuba, Collins reasoned that indiscriminate terror was of no value. Ran- dom or large-scale attacks would alienate public opinion. Conversely, launching an attack and waiting for the population to spontaneously rise to rebellion was equally 22 PART 1 Terrorism in Historical and Social Contexts futile. To be effective, terrorism had to selectively and ruthlessly target security forces and their ·symbols of authority. After months of planning, recruiting, and organizing, Collins launched a new form of the IRA. He began by gathering intelligence, learning the internal work- ings of British police headquarters, and obtaining a list of intelligence officers. The first attacks were devastating. Using the information from the extensive preparation, Collins's men ambushed off-duty police and intelligence officers and murdered them. They then began attacking police stations. IRA terrorists would emerge from a crowd- ed sidewalk, throw bombs and shoot police officers, then melt back into the crowd before authorities could respond. A master of strategy, Collins continued a campaign of terror against Unionists and the RIC. The British responded by sending a hastily recruited military force, called the Black and Tans because of their mismatched uniforms, and Ireland became the scene of a dreadful war. Each side accused the other of atrocities, but both parties engaged in murder and mayhem. The conflict became popularly known as the Tan War or the Black and Tan War. It was a fierce struggle between the IRA's selective terrorism and British repression. It ended with independence for the southern provinces and Brit- ish control of Northern Ireland. Failure to win freedom for the entire republic cost Michael Collins his life. It also served as the main source of terrorism directed at the United Kingdom through most of the twentieth century. > How did the IRB evolve toward militancy? > How did the Easter Rising impact republicanism 7 > What is the meaning of "selective terror;' and how did Collins employ it? Emphasizing the Points The United States has changed national security and law enforcement policies based partially on the way it defines terrorism. This is a situational definition, however, because the meaning of terrorism has changed through history. The ideas behind modern democracies were contained in the Enlightenment, giving birth to revolutions in the American colonies and in France. Terrorism was a product of the class-based revolution in France, and the term described the actions of the government. It would go through many changes in meaning until it once again was used to describe gov- ernment repression. Many of the chapters in Part 2 will summarize recent regional histories to show how the definition continues to fluctuate. Terrorism is difficult to define because it is a social construct and not a physical entity. Furthermore, the term is pejorative because it evokes a variety of politi- cally charged responses. The way terrorism is defined often has life or death consequences. The term terrorism is defined within social and political contexts, ~nd it means different things in different time periods. The meaning even changes within a historical time frame as contexts change. This is the primary reason that no single definition of terrorism will ever be successful.  Chapter 1 The Shifting Definition of Terrorism 23 Definitions of terrorism are important because they guide policy, but there are differing frameworks for definitions. Some approaches emphasize the criminal nature of terrorism. Others focus on the types of targets that terrorist select. While many academics offer definitions, they are probably not as important as policy definitions. Terrorism originated during the French Revolution. It described the actions of the government. In the nineteenth century, the French applied it to guerrillas in Spain, and it was used to describe the actions of radical democrats in the 1848 revolutions. By the century's end, it was used as a label for anarchists and nationalists. Socialism refers to controlling an economy by direct democracy and utilizing economic profits to ensure the well-being of citizens. Anarchism is a philosophi- cal concept that originated in ancient Greece. In the eighteenth century, anar- chists generally disavowed the power of national governments. Some anarchists were violent, engaging in bombing and assassination. Communism in its ideal form is socialism with economic production and profits being owned and dis- tributed by workers. Modern revolutionary terrorism is closely associated with a series of revolu- tionary activities that began with the People's Will and continued through the Russian Revolution. After the Communists seized power, they returned to the practice of the French revolutionaries and used terrorism to maintain political power. Irish revolutionaries fought for independence for several centuries. The Irish Republican Brotherhood was created in the mid-nineteenth century. They soon adopted the tactics of the 1848 revolutionaries, waging a campaign of terror that culminated in the Black and Tan War. After the failure of the Easter Rising, Michael Collins used the term selective terrorism. His intention was to target specific government officials and supporters. He sought to terrorize them until they accepted IRA terms. INTO THE FUTURE If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, as psychologists frequently argue, then the definition of terrorism will remain elusive. Aside from confusion sur- rounding the term and multiple agencies using a variety of meanings, there are im- portant international repercussions due to the lack of an internal agreement on a standard definition of terrorism. This will continue to remain problematic and com- plicate international relations. The main reasons are that it will allow murderous sub- national groups to operate with impunity in some parts of the world, and it will give repressive governments additional legitimacy. In the first case, assume that Country A suffers an attack on innocent civilians by a subnational group wishing to change Country Ns political policies. The citizens of Country A call this an act of terrorism. The group responsible for the attack is based in Country B, but when diplomats from Country A complain, the leaders of Country B respond by saying the group represents a legitimate political organization. While this may result in an incursion into Country B's sovereign territory and may even led to war, there is no international legal standard to delegitimize the subnational group. The second case is similar. Assume that a repressive dictator controls Country C. The people suffer under the dictator's hands, and there is no hope of peaceful political 24 PART 1 Terrorism in Historical and Social Contexts change. All forms of dissent are severely punished. The only hope of liberation can come from a revolution. As a result, a small group forms and begins to grow. It engages the government's forces and leaves citizens alone. The dictator calls this action terror- ism, and the international community lacks a legal standard to contradict this logic. For the foreseeable future, international diplomats and UN representatives will talk about the problems created by the lack of a standard definition of terrorism. That is probably all they will do. There seems to be little hope of agreeing on a standard definition in the near future. · KEYTERMS Social construct, p. 3 Reign of Terror, p. 9 Joseph Stalin, p. 15 Royal Irish Academic consensus Spain in 1807, p. 9 Vladmir Lenin, p. 15 Constabulary, p. 19 definition, p. 3 Radical democrats, p. 10 Vladmir Putin, p. 15 Supreme Council Social context, p. 3 Socialists, p. 10 Workers' Councils (or of the IRB, p. 20 Selective terrorism, p. 4 Anarchists, p. 10 Soviets), p. 16 Sinn Fein, p. 20 Nidal Malik Hasan, p. 4 Communists, p. 10 Leon Trotsky, p. 17 Free State, p. 21