Terrorist, Soldier

I found a Slate op/ed piece today called Terrorists ain't what they used to be. It reminded me of a discussion I had recently with Phil. (Phil is my philosophy major friend-we discuss/debate/argue a lot, often just for the fun of the mental sparring. It's good times.)

I was contending that the only difference between a terrorist and a soldier (a "bad guy" and a "good guy") is government recognition - a terrorist is someone, anyone, who uses "violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims." Phil argued that the definition of terrorism and terrorist have changed. To what, he never said, though.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to say anything against the line soldiers, the grunts, on either side. I respect them tremendously. Anyone willing to lay down their life for a cause, for the defense of others or an ideal, is praiseworthy in my book.

My problem is with the people making the decisions. The people who send young men to kill innocents by the planeload. The leaders who launch missles with the dual goals of causing damage to the enemy and creating martyrs on their own side in the inevitable retaliation (how many modern day martyrs were volunteered for the position by someone else?). The warlords who say, in effect, "You spit in my eye, so I'm justified in slitting your throat, and your cousins', too."

Since seeing Oliver Stone's World Trade Center Monday night I've been thinking. How many people died in the 9/11/01 attacks? 2-3 thousand? How many American's have been killed since in what could be called a terrorist action? How many American soldiers? On the other hand, how many innocents in other countries have been killed by American violence with a political aim (terrorism)? How many foreign combatants?

The title of terrorist has been dragged through the mud in recent years, but it could be fairly applied to the American Founding Fathers (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et al), President Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), President Ulysses S Grant (Mexican & Civil Wars), General Robert Lee (Mexican & Civil Wars), Stonewall Jackson (Mexican & Civil Wars), President Theodore Roosevelt (Spanish-American War), President Franklin Roosevelt (WWII), the French Resistance during WWII, President John F. Kennedy (Cuban Missile Crisis), President Richard Dixon (Vietnam, Watergate), the mujahideen in Afghanistan who fought the Soviets, President Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra), President George H.W. Bush (Gulf War I), President Bill Clinton (Somalia, various "peacekeeping" missions), and President George W. Bush (Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Before you get mad at me (assuming it's not too late) I'm not saying that these are all bad people--I'm saying that sometimes a good guy is a terrorist.

I'd like to see a change in the way modern leaders think. Running nations or armies with a retalitory mindset is dangerous. All it can do is get people killed. Instead of a "How much damage can I do to my enemy? How can I minimize the damage he does to me?" mindset, I'd like to see more of a "How can I make my enemy my friend?" worldwide.

Here's a hint for that last question: you don't make friends at gunpoint.