Terrorism: War or Crime?

Brian Frederking

August 16, 2006

The recent British arrest of terrorists plotting to blow up airplanes and the ongoing Israeli invasion of Lebanon illustrate two different ways to fight terrorism. One is to consider it a crime; the other is to consider it a war. Was 9/11 a criminal act or an act of war?

How we answer this question is important because we fight crime and wars in very different ways. War means that we treat terrorists as enemies to be killed; crime means that we treat terrorists as criminals to be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. War requires the military; crime requires police, intelligence agencies, and courts. War requires victory over a dehumanized foe; crime requires strategies regarding poverty, education, and economic development.

US policy is often stuck between these two metaphors. For example, war means that prisoners are covered by the Geneva Conventions: they cannot be interrogated or punished and must be released when the war is over. Criminals, however, can be interrogated and imprisoned. We neither want to treat them as prisoners of war and recognize the Geneva Conventions nor do we want to treat them as criminals and provide due process and a trial. Instead we call them “enemy combatants” and detain them at Guantanamo Bay.

Much of the global dispute between the United States and the rest of the world about how to deal with terrorism hinges on this distinction. I published an article recently with two of my students in the journal International Politics in which we analyzed over 300 statements by global leaders about the events of 9/11. American leaders were much more likely to use the war metaphor, and all other leaders around the world were more likely to use the crime metaphor.

This is why the world did not support the invasion of Iraq. This is why the world wants us to shut down Guantanamo Bay. This is why the United States was the only country on the Security Council not supporting an immediate ceasefire when Israel invaded Lebanon. We think we are fighting a war, and they think we are fighting crime.

This dispute also says much about what kind of world we want. Wars are fought in an anarchical world of sovereign nation-states not influenced by international law and institutions. Crime is fought within international societies with the rule of law. Using the crime metaphor presumes the existence of an international society with global rules against terrorism that terrorists have violated.

Debating whether terrorism is really war or crime will not get us very far. It has elements of both and does not obviously fit into either category. Instead we need to be more practical and debate which metaphor, which set of policies, and ultimately which world is more conducive to US security.

Are we safer if we try to base global security on the might of the US military? Are we safer because our military is in Iraq and Israel’s is in Lebanon? Or are we safer because the British and the Pakistanis worked together to foil this recent terrorist plot? Do we achieve security through overwhelming military capability? Or do we achieve security through political cooperation?

We should think about the Israelis, who have constantly had superior military capability yet precarious levels of security in their war. And we should think about the British, with their long history of dealing with Northern Ireland, who worked together with the Pakistanis to infiltrate this terrorist group and foiled their plans.

What do we need to do to decrease the chances of another 9/11? Keep using the rhetoric of war and invading more Middle East countries? Or admit that we are dealing with crime and develop the political cooperation necessary so that the Saudis, or the Egyptians, or even the Syrians, are more likely to work with us and help us capture the terrorists?