Future Retired American Generals Society
Welcomes Lt Gen Victor Renuart, the director of planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who tells the Daily Telegraph regarding Iran:
“And any action by any country will have second-order effects, and that is a strong case to continue the diplomatic process and make it work.”
More Renuart, unrelated to Iran, from the recent antiterrorism conference. I find a lot to disagree with in the premises of his remarks on the conference – it’s partly a brief justifying maximalist drug prohibition as an anti-terror measure. He also wants to problematize definitions of terrorism in ways that strike me as obtuse:
Attendees also discussed how to define terrorism, he said. “Reaching a common definition is very difficult. In one country, organizations may use terrorist techniques even though they may be insurgents struggling against the government,” he said.
He pointed to the recent struggle of Maoist rebels against the repressive regime in Nepal as a difficult-to-define case study. “Are they terrorists or are they insurgents? That clearly is a difficult definition to come up with,” he said.
But terrorism is just a method of irregular warfare: it’s the deliberate infliction of civilian casualties for political gain. Trying to bring motive into it is just a way to redefine terrorists whose agenda we find congenial as “not terrorists.”
Comment by Jonathan Goff —
May 2, 2006 @ 10:15 am
I’ve always prefered open hypocracy and dishonesty to the more subtle sorts. At least if they do this, we can start calling it a War on (some) Terrorism. But really Jim, how shocked are you?
Comment by Keir —
May 3, 2006 @ 2:37 am
The IRA are/were terrorists who tried to avoided civilian casualties. If you refer to the original `propoganda of the deed’ roots of terrorism, you’ll note attempts to avoid civilain casualties.
Terrorism has always been defined by motive.
(Also, if terrorism is the killing of civilians for the promotion of political goals, and terrorism is bad, why hasn’t the US condenmed and apologised for the thousand bomber raids? And what about the Cold War? If that wasn’t a gigantic exercise in preparing for the ultimate terrorist atrocity (i.e. WW III) ever, then what?)
Comment by wade —
May 3, 2006 @ 2:42 am
f*@k the IRA!
Comment by Keir —
May 3, 2006 @ 2:43 am
Sorry. I realise that I’ve conflated you and the Bush Administration. Let me just apologise. Sorry.
Let me try that again. more carefully this time:
The FRAGS (Future Retired…) hasn’t proposed anything new in terms of terrorism.
The IRA are/were terrorists who tried to avoided civilian casualties. If you refer to the original `propoganda of the deed’ roots of terrorism, you’ll note attempts to avoid civilain casualties.
Terrorism has always been defined by motive.
(Also, if Bush’s notion of terrorism is the killing of civilians for the promotion of political goals, and terrorism is bad, why hasn’t the US condenmed and apologised for the thousand bomber raids? And what about the Cold War? If that wasn’t a gigantic exercise in preparing for the ultimate terrorist atrocity (i.e. WW III) ever, then what?)
So, at the least, they aren’t introducing any new concepts, though they may be taking a stance you disagree with.
Comment by wade —
May 3, 2006 @ 2:44 am
really,keir, how is bombing warrington shopping centre avoiding civillian casualties?