Legitimate use of military force against state-sponsored - Air University

punishment of a state sponsor (the April 1986 raid on Libya). The state sponsoring or supporting
international terrorism may be viewed as engaging in “armed aggression against the United
States… just as if [it] had used its own armed forces” but international terrorists themselves will
not be so recognized. 1
The military may feel uneasy and uncertain about its role in essentially a law enforcement
function. Terrorists are not combatants, and military action is not taken in a warlike context.
Military actions against terrorists are characterized as a response to a peacetime crisis and not an
armed conflict. Moreover, in today’s world, military force generally is seen as an ineffective
means to project power abroad. Hence, in this context, the law of armed conflict does not apply
to international terrorists.
Some may argue that this view is changing and that terrorism now is viewed as
essentially a form of warfare. Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation has concluded that
“terrorism indeed has become a new mode of warfare.” 2 Terrorist expert Paul Wilkinson of the
University of Aberdeen agrees: “International terrorist attack is simply a different mode of war,
not an alternative to war as such.” 3 But other experts do not fully agree. Some experts see a trend
in that direction but are guarded as to whether terrorism has really become warfare. 4
Government officials in the United States have joined the discussion with some strong
words about terrorism as warfare. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former US permanent representative to
the United Nations, has asserted that “terrorism is a form of war.” 5 Ambassador Vernon Walters,
her successor, agrees, “We are not dealing here with the acts of individuals or groups but rather
with a state policy to use force by clandestine means or, as one speaker in the debate put it, ‘war
by another name’.” 6 Secretary of State George Shultz is quoted as saying that terrorism is “no
longer the random acts of isolated groups or local fanatics,” but rather it “is now a method of
warfare.” 7 The Long commission, appointed by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger to
investigate the October 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut, characterizes
the threat to the United States as “terrorist warfare, sponsored by sovereign states or organized
political entities to achieve political objectives.” 8
Ambassador Robert Oakley, head of the Department of State, Office of Counterterrorism,
speaking in September 1985, placed terrorism into the conflict spectrum as a “form of
low-intensity warfare.” 9 Although Defense Department agencies continued to struggle with the
issue, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), in November 1985, approved a definition of low-intensity
conflict that included terrorism.
Low-intensity conflict is a limited politico-military struggle to achieve
political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and
ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychosocial pressures through terrorism
and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographical
area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and level
of violence. 10