Shock & Awe

Ever since the US started their campaign against Sadaam something hasn't sat right with me, beyond the obvious that others have been over inside and out. The claim is that it's a fight against terrorism, which is fine until you look at what the definition of terrorism actually is. Terrorism is an intentional aim to achieve a political goal. You terrorise your enemy into accepting your chosen policies. It can come in many forms.

The whole softening up process at the start, called "Shock & Awe™", a typical brash American PR term is the very definition of terrorism. The goal was to terrorise the Iraqi government and military, as well as potential insurgents and the local populace that it's pointless to resist the Americans when they arrive on the ground. Win by creating enough fear that they throw down their weapons and give up. Hope that Iraqi soldiers abandon their posts; abandon Sadaam and his cabal, so that the Americans can get the imagery they want with their embedded 24 hour news propaganda correspondents of being welcomed with open arms as liberators.

This is no different from the Islamic extremists who create terror with suicide bombs in public places, or in places that don't abide by their chosen policy / doctrine. Schools that teach girls are targets for example. It's a political goal, achieved through terror. Win by creating enough fear that they close schools to girls, that girls stop leaving the house to go to school and that any schools that do continue to defy them have no students.

If something fits the definition of terrorism, then it's terrorism, no matter who is behind it. In the case of the US "Shock & Awe™" (we wouldn't want to intrude on the US Government's Intellectual Property would we?) how does this not fit the description of "state sponsored terrorism"? So why do they demonise countries who they claim promote terrorism behind the scenes (as they do themselves) while waging a full on public campaign of terror? What do international laws say should happen to states who sponsor terrorism? Oh wait, the US don't believe in international law, I wonder why.

Why the double standards?

The anti-globalisation protests always draw in nutcases to cause trouble under a peaceful banner often have anti-terror laws applied to them. In their cases terror is not the aim or the goal, it's a side product. The goal is to cause damage to companies buildings and profits, and draw attention to their cause. I don't doubt for a second that staff trapped inside a building with a rampaging mob outside is terrifying, I fully accept that it would be, but it's not the aim of the act. This does not mean they should be free to riot, they should not. The Police have a duty to keep the peace and protect the populace to the best of their ability.

Terrorism is an intentional aim to create terror to achieve a political goal.

They keep telling us that terrorism can't be allowed to win. I totally agree, but until we call a spade a spade we will get nowhere to achieving that goal. We need to quit the double standards.