Let's define our terms of war carefullyhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/valley_voices/story/11202850p-11953753c.htmlAs we commemorate the fourth anniversary of Sept. 11, it is time to give up the confused rhetoric of the war on terrorism. The Pentagon appears to recognize this. General Richard Myers and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have recently avoided the term "war on terrorism." They now claim that we are engaged in a struggle against "violent extremism." Perhaps Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers are using this term because they acknowledge that attacks on military targets cannot properly be called terrorism. This improved use of language should be applauded. Confusion about terminology leads to bad policy. The Sept. 11 attacks were linked to Iraq under the general idea of the war on terrorism. It is time to end this confusion. Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. The battle we should be fighting in Iraq is one to create order in a society that we destabilized. It may be that the best way to stabilize Iraq is to keep American forces there. But that is a question of strategy. And good strategy requires clear thinking. Dubious idea Unfortunately, President Bush confuses the issue by continuing to invoke the dubious idea of the war on terror. At a recent speech in Idaho, Bush pledged to win the war on terror by continuing to fight in Iraq. He said, "The only way to defend our citizens where we live is to go after the terrorists where they live." And he concluded, "So long as I am president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror." Such rhetoric has been repeated ad nauseam during the past four years. Undoubtedly it will be repeated again on Sunday. This is not to say we shouldn't fight terrorism. Terrorism is systematically random violence that aims to create fear in a target population. Terrorists instill fear by refusing to make a distinction between legitimate military targets and innocent noncombatants. Terrorists thus explode bombs in public places like buses and subways killing anyone who is in the vicinity, including children. Terror insinuates itself when everyone — including children — has something to fear. This is why terrorism is wrong. Those who deliberately kill the innocent should be condemned as evil; and they should be resisted with force, if necessary. However, violence that is used against those who might expect to be targeted is not, properly speaking, terrorism. Military personnel take on special duties and responsibilities that give them reason to expect to be targets of violence. This is why they carry guns: They are in the business of controlling and responding to violence. Those who proudly wear the uniform and insignia of the military are representatives of political power. Enemies who oppose political power can be expected to strike military targets. Complex tool Attacks on military targets are not always justifiable. The just war tradition is a complex tool that helps us decide when attacks on military targets are justified. But it is a mistake to say that attacks on military targets are terrorism. Such attacks are not random and they do not intentionally harm the innocent. Rather, such attacks are deliberately aimed at those who wear the uniform. Thus it is better to locate such attacks under the general category of insurgency or guerilla warfare. For example, the recent attacks on U.S. warships in Jordan were not terrorism, while the London subway bombings were. Of course, there is terrorism in Iraq: Innocents are sometimes deliberately targeted. And militants have streamed into Iraq since we invaded. But we should differentiate among types of attacks so that we can make better judgments about the proper strategic response. The just war tradition tells us that the morality of war depends upon the reasons for fighting. These reasons determine the strategies that can legitimately be employed. A good reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is that we have an obligation to create order in a country we invaded. But it is disingenuous to claim that we must fight the insurgency there in order to prevent terrorism here. Be clear As we commemorate those who were slaughtered four years ago, we should not abuse their memory by falsely linking Sept. 11 with the war in Iraq. And let's be clear about why we are fighting in Iraq. One of the best ways to support the troops would be to abandon the facile idea of the war on terrorism. Then we might have an honest discussion of our goals and strategies, including I hope, an exit strategy. Andrew Fiala is an associate professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno. |