Definition of "Terrorism"

One of the most overlooked obstacles that the U.S. faces in the war on terror is the actual definition of the word terrorism. At last count the United Nations estimated that the governments of the world use 160 different definitions of "terrorism." Additionally not every country has laws against acts of terror. The U.S. alone uses multiple definitions because Congress has not effectively created legislation that addresses this shortcoming. Currently, each bureaucracy defines terrorism as it relates to their respective mission. For the purposes of this blog I will use the definition used by the Department of Defense, which states: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." This definition, while short of perfect, does adequately describe what terrorism is, not necessarily who falls into the category of terrorists or for that matter specific acts of terrorism. This is an important distinction because not all terrorists succeed in their attacks and yet must still be held to account.
Another aspect that must be considered is how to categorize terrorism. Is terrorism a crime or is it an act of war? Unfortunately the lines are not always as clear as we would like them to be. For instance the 9/11 hijackers broke numerous laws, not only those that are terrorism related, in order to carry out their heinous attacks. If we were to propose a hypothetical situation in which the 9/11 plot was prevented we could then ask whether the terrorists would be prosecuted as criminals in a civilian court and is it possible that the U.S. could still invade Afghanistan in retaliation for the attempt? The answer to both questions citing pre-9/11 policy and anti-terrorism laws is yes. The reasoning behind this is that the 9/11 hijackers were acting as defacto agents of the Taliban regime. Al-Qaeda was more than just a terrorist group operating in Afghanistan because they had an active brigade serving in the Taliban military thus justifying a military response regardless of the success of the attacks. This situation is similar to attempted murder and first degree murder; the success of the crime does not negate the seriousness of the attempt.
In the past, situations have arisen where terrorism falls solely in the category of criminality. In the 1970's and 1980's the Baader-Meinhof group struck numerous U.S. military targets in Germany. In 1972 the group succeeded in killing an Army Colonel and wounding 11 others. This attack would not fall in the act of war category, but rather represents a criminal act. This is because the groups link to the Soviet Union could not be proven as it is widely believed the group was self financed through bank robberies. Because the group acted without direct state sponsorship the group could only be tried in a civilian court (which is what happened though it took time to apprehend the active members).
In essence each act of terrorism must be evaluated independently. For this reason it is important that the definition of terrorism should be somewhat general such as the definition used by the DOD. As far as policy makers are concerned the definition is important as it relates to international cooperation among law enforcement and military when describing a group or movement as being terrorists; while the courts on the other hand can rely on specific acts of terror to prosecute suspects under national or international law.