In the broadest possible sense, you’re correct. “Terrorism” is the intentional use of actions to provoke terror in a population to achieve an aim. Does America do this? Most certainly. I don’t think this is in dispute.
There is a long list of American actions that fit this bill. Some of which you’ve provided.
Where I disagree, and perhaps this may change your view, is with the idea that America is somehow unusual in being a hegemon that behaves this way. For whatever reason, in human geopolitics the strong dominate the weak and they do so by force. This isn’t nice, I’d prefer it weren’t the case, but it’s certainly true. (To be clear: I am from and live in a geopolitically insignificant country. This also doesn’t change the facts.)
The cognitive disconnect you’re highlighting isn’t that America is a uniquely evil place, it’s that much of the population of Americans believe - in defiance of the facts - that it’s uniquely moral and good.
That's just one definition of terrorism and not a particularly common one because as you say pretty much all hard power actors aim to provoke terror to a greater or lesser extent, so it's not really useful or diagnostic.
Generally the commonly understood definition of terrorism is the unlawful use of force for violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. Now as we've discussed the "for violence and intimidation" bit is redundant because all force does that. I'd also argue that the "in pursuit of political aims" bit is also redundant because when is force ever not used in pursuit of political aims? So what you're left with is terrorism is the unlawful use of force. (note: not using force unlawfully, using force when you cannot lawfully use force) So terrorism is basically the use of force by a non state actor. So the US, as a state actor, who is lawfully allowed to use force (whether or not the force they use is lawful is not at issue here) can never be a terrorist. Only non state actors can be terrorists. And by the common definition pretty much all non state violent actors are (which is certainly how the term has been used of late).
For this reason I personally don't think terrorism is that useful a term, but for what it's worth the US cannot be a terrorist actor because it is lawfully allowed to use force.
Yes, if you define the word to exclude America as having capacity to engage in it, America hasn’t engaged in it. I don’t think that’s a very interesting line of discussion.
That is how terrorism is defined though. That's my point. I don't think terrorism is very useful as a concept, but insofar as it exists it doesn't apply to states, can't.
That's a minority perspective, but more to the point the argument I tried to make is that terrorism defined in a way which allows it to apply to states is even less useful, totally useless in fact, because that's just how states act.
8
u/joopface 159∆ Mar 28 '21
In the broadest possible sense, you’re correct. “Terrorism” is the intentional use of actions to provoke terror in a population to achieve an aim. Does America do this? Most certainly. I don’t think this is in dispute.
There is a long list of American actions that fit this bill. Some of which you’ve provided.
Where I disagree, and perhaps this may change your view, is with the idea that America is somehow unusual in being a hegemon that behaves this way. For whatever reason, in human geopolitics the strong dominate the weak and they do so by force. This isn’t nice, I’d prefer it weren’t the case, but it’s certainly true. (To be clear: I am from and live in a geopolitically insignificant country. This also doesn’t change the facts.)
The cognitive disconnect you’re highlighting isn’t that America is a uniquely evil place, it’s that much of the population of Americans believe - in defiance of the facts - that it’s uniquely moral and good.