that's why terrorism is the wrong word. in these circles what we witnessed is called asymmetrical warfare. it can be "non-violent" in the sense that it can be accomplished by, say, knocking out the power grid in strategic places. no one will get killed per se, but it would sure shake things up. it's terrorism nonetheless:
<paste> We're really out of the war business. Oh sure, we bomb Serbs and Panamanians and bury helpless Iraqi Republican Guard under a million tons of sand, and in that case we are the asymmetrical adversary. There is no way in hell they can match our military might. And as my Air Force friends like to say, "when all else fails, we can always make the rubble bounce!" (Nukes.)
And that is why the Beijing government, proclaimed in their summer 1999 book, Unrestricted War, that since they can not possibly win a conventional military conflict with the United States, it is now open season on US civilian infrastructures including critical financial systems, transportation, communications and power. One of the authors, Col. Wang Xiangsui, of the Chinese Air Force, amplified those sentiments in the Washington Post, 9 Aug 1999. "War has rules, but those rules are set by the West...if you use those rules, then weak countries have no chance...We are a weak country, so do we need to fight according to your rules? No." Future adversaries will seek asymmetries in confronting technologically superior opponents like the US by embracing the "indirect approach" which in itself is an asymmetric approach.
Our overwhelming conventional and nuclear asymmetrical superiority has forced our potential global nation-state adversaries to escalate the Asymmetrical Arms Race into new models that we would generally view as terrorism or unwarranted attacks on non-combatant civilians. Remember that in the World War I Zimmermann Telegram, Germany similarly declared a policy of Unrestricted War which specifically meant that they considered neutrals and civilians to be legitimate targets of war. Whether the PRC intended such a literal trans-century connotation is not known yet, but the parallel is foreboding: war or terrorism on US soil in some form or another in the coming years. The Chinese colonels who wrote Unrestricted War also suggested that Serbian President Milosovic would have increased his strength by launching terrorist-style attacks against NATO and US interests in Italy.
Asymmetry is what gives terrorists their strength. They operate so far outside the box of accepted international behavior (with a few notable nation-state exceptions) that most of us cannot fathom the rationale behind their acts. When we examine our potential adversaries from a cultural standpoint, their value systems can be radically different those of the US, Europe or even Russia. The honor of the Warrior Class from many eras (Greece, Rome, Japan, et al) is seen in some of today's distributed non-nation-state potential combatants; a philosophy which is at odds with the professional armed services of the US (et al). Culturally we do not understand the value-based asymmetrical approach that is comfortable in using atrocity as a legitimate weapon of war, such as Serbian soldiers using rape to undermine the will of their opponent
According to Lt. Gen Edward L. Rowney, USA (Ret.), "Our biggest mistakes stem from the assumption that others are like us, when in fact, they are more unlike than like us. We insist on ascribing to others our cultural traits, not recognizing that we have different objectives due to our unique historic backgrounds and sets of values. In short, We fail to place ourselves in the other person's moccasins."
How we handle such asymmetries underscores the legal and cultural box in which Western nations have put themselves. When the World Trade Center was blown up, law enforcement launched an investigation and then a trial took place to prove the guilt were guilty. Oklahoma City, same thing. At the end of 1999, we are only now getting to where a negotiated trial will occur for the Lockerbie tragedy a decade ago. Sure, we strafed Tripoli for a bit, but our symmetrical response to asymmetric attack is still considered civil behavior. But for how much longer will that be an adequate response? How many terrorist acts will it take to alter our typical symmetrical response into an even more asymmetrical response to the original asymmetrical attack?
The Fishtank
The Santa Fe Institute is a think tank for people who like to think with an interdisciplinary view. So, they ran a game.
The game was simple. They created an artificial fish tank; it was a digital fish tank, and only lived within the quantum uncertainties of silicon storage on NPN junctions inside of memory chips. The game was for players to introduce artificial life forms into the fish tank and observe how they coexisted; see which life form lived the longest and the healthiest. Who is the long-term survivor? Anyone could play.
A-lifers from around the world participated and introduced their favorite digital life forms into the fish tank and watched. Over time life forms thrived, multiplied and died out from either their own programmed failings or from interaction with other life forms. However, over the prolonged period of fish tank gaming, one life form consistently dominated. Many life forms had been imbued with complex rule sets governing their behavior and life style. The ultimate winner, though, also had the simplest set of rules:
1. My species will always play nice with you. I will never be aggressive to you. We will make every attempt to cooperate and work with you and everyone in our (global) fish tank.
2. If you screw with me, I will annihilate you without any warning. Period. 21st Century real politik won't allow any of us to function that way today because we are covered by the oxymoronic "Rules of War". Western nations cannot tolerate televised bloodbaths during the dinner hour, and besides, we don't have adequate definitions of what "screw with me" really means.
Terrorism is a crime not an act of war; our legal system gives them rights and privileges and protection
yet by their standards, their acts could be considered aggressive and war-like. Same acts - different perceptions.
</paste>