Trying To Define "Terrorism"

In a WSJ editorial today on a recent speech by the British Defense Minister John Reid suggesting that the Geneva Conventions may need to be reviewed given the differences in the nature of war in the 21st Century, Daniel Henninger lamented that:

Most likely, any such reconsideration would pass through the United Nations, [which] has never been able to agree on a definition of "terrorism." That is so the worst of them can escape censure for crimes against civilian populations. Thus the legitimacy of suicide bombings as an instrument of policy remains, repulsively, an "open question."

I may try to find and read Mr Reid's speech becuase, from the description in Henninger's editorial, it sounds like a thoughtful, even angushed, effort to at once preserve our commitment "to mitigate the savagery of armed conflict" and yet recognize the reality that "we have now to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents."

But forget that for a minute. Forget the difficulties involved in trying to gain international consensus on what is and is not allowed in modern warfare. Let's start with the more basic question: How do we define "terrorism"? What definition are we prepared to lobby in favor of? More particularly, what tactics are we prepared to have declared to be violations of international law and, perhaps, "crimes against humanity" that could (theoretically at least) end up putting an American President in the dock at the Hague.

Henninger jumps right over this question to reach his conclusion that it is only the bad guys who are frustrating a consensus. He takes it a self-evident that suicide bombing and flying planes into buildings should be declared illegal. I agree, of course. But surely we need something more principled that a listing of specific acts. Why are such tactics wrong yet others like the fire bombing of Dresden or the defoliation of Viet Nam OK? Why is flying a plane into a building different from dropping a bomb on one? Why are IED's along the roadsides in Baghdad condemned yet Francis Marion's ambushes of Redcoats so glowingly celebrated in "The Patriot"?

One feature of "terrorism,"of course, is that it is directed at civilian populations as they go about their day-to-day lives. This doesn't explain the difference between IEDs and Francis Marion's ambushes, of course. But more importantly, the whole notion that civilian populations are not "legitimate" targets in time of war died an ignominous death in World War II, and I suspect few today would classify Harry Truman as a terrorist simply becuase he nuked two Japanese cities of little or no military significance. So, at least today, the status of the victims is not alone a sufficient basis for distinguishing illegal "terrorism" from legal acts of war.

But what else is there? The only other "principle" I seem able to divine is that attacks generally, and attacks on civilan populations in particular, are OK so long as the attackers are wearing uniforms, but they are not OK when the attackers are themselves civilians. Is that really the principle at work here? And, if so, how legitimate is that?

It is at times like this that I wish I had Kevin Drum's or Instapundit's audience. But if anyone in my own very small audience has any thoughts on this issue, please post them below.