We have all heard the saying that “One man’s terrorist is
another man’s freedom fighter.” The
purpose of this saying is to remind us that it all depends on our perspective,
on which side we agree with, whether we believe that a person is a terrorist or
a freedom fighter. But, as students of
foreign affairs, shouldn’t we be able to identify ways o differentiate
terrorists and freedom fighters other than whose side they are on?
At what point does insurgency become terrorism? Or should we ask the question the other way
around? At what point does terrorism
become insurgency? “Insurgency” lends more
credence and legitimacy to a groups actions than “terrorism” does. Both have a political goal, and they use
violence as a means to work toward that goal.
In our minds, we would like to think that insurgents only fight against
the military forces of whatever regime they are rebelling against. Terrorists, on the other hand, are willing to
use violence against civilians to make their points. Or is the difference more on the level of
organization? Insurgents have a strategy
and a plan to carry out that strategy, but terrorists lack organization and
instead rely on operational whims?
Looking at ISIS as an example of terrorism vs. insurgency,
we find that they have really muddied the waters between the two monikers. We call them a terrorist group, but they at
least fit the organizational and strategic criteria to be considered an
insurgency. So, is it really true that “One
man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?” Does it all depend on perspective? Or are there still more way to differentiate
that we should search for and use?
No comments:
Post a Comment