Above the gates of hell is the warning that all that enter should abandon hope.Less dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to defineterrorism. "It can be predicted with confidence that the disputes about adetailed, comprehensive definition of terrorism will continue for a long time,that they will not result in a consensus, and that they will make no noticeablecontribution towards the understanding of terrorism." The author of thiswarning, undeterred by it, goes on to discuss the definition of terrorism atlength.1 In doing so, he follows an honored tradition. Every consideration ofterrorism begins by discussing its definition and apologizing for doing so. Thediscussion arises from the commendable urge to know what we are talkingabout, the apology from the reasonable expectation that the complexity of thesubject will defeat our efforts. Discouraged from defining terrorism by itscomplexity, we are urged by its monstrous character to get on with the job ofcombating it, whether we understand it fully or not, leaving the niceties ofdefinition for a quieter time. This may particularly be the prejudice of so-calledmen of action. But we cannot take their advice, for, as we have just noted, howwe define terrorism will determine how we combat it. Giving in to the urge tocombat terrorism before trying to understand or define it, then, may give ussome satisfaction in the short term, but only at the expense of frustration lateron. With terrorism, as with everything else, acting before understanding isnever practical. Without apology, then, we must consider what terrorism is.This task is made less daunting by our practical purpose and our focus on theU.S. government. We want to understand what terrorism is not to develop aperfect definition but to gain the clarity necessary for effective action, and weare concerned with the actions of a particular government. The best place tobegin, ...
