Terrorists

The first time I remember hearing the word Terrorist was when I attended the Defense Information School in the late 1970s.  

DINFOS, as the Defense Information School is called in the military, was at that time located at Fort Benjamin Harrison, near Indianapolis.  

DINFOS was established as the school for public affairs officers and enlisted persons from all of the services and also for civilian employees (like myself at the time) of the services.  One of the most memorable sessions at DINFOS was a presentation by a guest speaker who was, I believe, either with the CIA or the State Department. 

What I recall from the presentation was that the main objective of terrorist organizations was not really the damage they caused.  Their “hidden agenda” was to get the government to overreact and, by so doing, further the longer-term political objectives of the terrorist organization.  According to this speaker (whose name I long ago forgot), terrorist organizations do not seek to hold territory or even expect to defeat the military of the country they attack.  

It is also important to differentiate between terror and terrorist organizations.  Most pacifists would probably argue that in one way or another all war is terror.  While I am in not a pacifist myself, in this I do agree, all warfare involves terror of some kind.

In addition to terrorist organizations, the word terrorist has also been used to describe individuals acting alone.  This DIFOS speaker did not address individual terrorists and I believe their motives are all over the board and extremely difficult to identify.  They are also much more difficult to predict or prevent.  I am not sure the word terrorist really applies here.  Perhaps “sick”, “crazy”, “unhinged”, or “pathological” better describes these people. 

The DINFOS speaker was talking about terrorist organizations, not individual acts of terror. What he had to say about these groups went against what I had been taught, and learned, about warfare.

Having already been on active duty in the Marines and having served with an infantry battalion in Vietnam before this presentation at DINFOS, this idea about Terrorist Organizations struck me as novel.  We (The Marines and later the Army soldiers I trained and served with) were taught that our mission was to first defend our own people/country and more specifically the Constitution of the United States, to which we all took a solemn vow to protect and defend.  

As a Marine and later as a soldier, I was always hopeful this mission to Protect and Defend could be accomplished by being strong enough militarily to dissuade potential enemies.  Often, however, we have been unable to dissuade the enemy and thus must either destroy the other country’s military capability or eliminate their military’s “will to resist.”    This usually involves “holding ground” until a more friendly government can be established, or reestablished.  

Even the North Vietnamese Regular Army (NVA), which my battalion fought against in I Corps (Northern South Vietnam),  were not “ A Terrorist Organization.”  They were the army of a country whose leaders definitely wanted to defeat both the U.S. and South Vietnam (ARVIN) military forces.  Then they wanted to take over (hold ground) the entire land mass of the South Vietnam.  

The NVA’s military tactics and strategy were different than ours given the situation and they used both guerrilla tactics and terror to achieve their goals.  They also embraced the idea of “Total Warfare” which meant every man, woman and even some children were involved in the war.  But they were not a “terrorist organization”  using the definition that the DINFOS guest speaker first introduced to me and my classmates.  

I was a student in the Marine Corp’s The Basic School prior to going to Vietnam.  I remember being told that the goal of the North Vietnamese was to prolong the war as long as necessary because eventually the U.S. would grow tired of it all and just leave.  Turns out this is what happened.  The NVA goal was clearly to outlast the Americans, then to defeat the South Vietnamese military and take over the country. 

Terrorist organizations see the situation much differently.  Although they may use similar military tactics and certainly don’t mind killing people, their goal is not to win a war in the traditional sense.  Terrorists don’t really care about protecting anyone.  Quite the contrary, they “win” if the government they attack kills the very people that they come from and often times, rule over.  

Terrorists organizations don’t need to win the hearts and minds of the people, they just need to do horrible things to get the government to overreact.  By overreacting, the government becomes the enemy of those people who were pretty much unaligned with the terrorist organization at the start of the conflict.  

I dislike memes I see on Facebook.  They almost always tell only a small part of a larger story or issue.  Like bumper stickers, they generate a, ”Ya, that tells them!” response without really providing any substance. 

Nonetheless, I did see a meme recently placed on Facebook by a friend of mine that got me thinking.  The meme showed two soldiers firing rifles at each other.  One soldier was labeled “Israel,” the other “Hamas.”  Also shown in the meme were two baby carriages.  One  baby carriage was behind the Israeli soldier and the other baby carriage was in front of the “Hamas” Soldier who was hiding behind it.   

The meme raised numerous issues for me.  Most obvious was that the Hamas soldier was using the baby carriage as a shield.  This speaks to the despicable lengths that terrorist organizations will go to in battle.  It also speaks to the obvious conclusion that the Terrorist Organization members (In this case Hamas) do not really care about protecting people, quite the opposite, they use people.

Less obvious, but equally important is the question, “How does the Israeli soldier eliminate his enemy without hitting the baby carriage?” I saw the baby carriage as symbolic of all innocent people.  The second issue to me is the more difficult one to handle.  How do we eliminate (Kill) the terrorist without killing innocent people in the process.  

Collateral damage is the term used to describe people not involved in the actual fighting but who are killed or injured because of military actions.  The very nature of warfare almost always includes some collateral damage.  But, how much is too much?  

One way to limit terrorist organizations impact with minimal collateral damage is to assassinate their leader(s). This was done by the US with al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden the mastermind and financier of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S.  and a number of others over the years.  However, assassination of terrorist leaders takes a long time and does not immediately answer the cry of the public to, “Do something now!”

And there is another problem with assassination (beyond the obvious legal and ethical issues). Unfortunately, terrorist organizations resemble both the Greek mythological Lernean Hydra which regrew a new head when one was cut off, and the real-life chameleon which can change its color as needed to blend in with its surroundings. 

Terrorist leaders are not only hard to find, but once you do eliminate them, another takes his place and the organization can reconstitute itself under a new name and often in a new location or a totally new terrorist organization can be formed. 

All that is needed for a terrorist organization to succeed is financial backing and to have cult-like followers.  The cult-like followers need not be significant in numbers, they just need to feel that they are a part of something bigger than themselves, and of course, be willing to die.

I wish I had an answer to this dilemma:  How does one “win” when fighting terrorist organizations?