THE RIGHT BOOKS

The twentieth century, being no respecter of forms, has a hard time with distinctions. Thus, novels are confused with movies, rock with music, and sodomy with sex; while abortion is detached from the category of murder, and terrorism from something lower even than simple barbarism. Thus, as William McGurn argues in Terrorist or Freedom-Fighter? The Cost of Confusion (The Institute for European Defense and Strategic Studies, 13/14 Golden Square, London W1R 3AG, England; $8), the saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter” has become a kind of public orthodoxy for our time.

As Paul Johnson has written, while civilized people everywhere “condemn terrorism in general and on principle . . . there is often one particular group of terrorists . . . whom they are not prepared to describe as terrorists, but rather as freedom-fighters or guerrillas.” Or, in McGurn’s formulation, “On the contentious issue of terrorism—its distinction from legitimate forms of political struggle, and the means required to combat it—the awful truth is that a practical consensus does not yet exist” in the West— with results such as the freeing of Abul Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro piracy, by the prime minister of Italy; the Greek prime minister’s condemnation of the American strike against Tripoli in April 1986 as a “terrorist action”; and the Reagan Administration’s willingness to swap arms for hostages in Iran and to meet with Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress. “Whether or not we choose to label someone a terrorist,” McGurn charges, “has come to depend on whether or not we favor the idea of a united Ireland, an independent Afghanistan, and so on.” And yet:

CW

About the Author

Chilton Williamson Jr.

Featured Tags

The twentieth century, being no respecter of forms, has a hard time with distinctions. Thus, novels are confused with movies, rock with music, and sodomy with sex; while abortion is detached from the category of murder, and terrorism from something lower even than simple barbarism. Thus, as William McGurn argues in Terrorist or Freedom-Fighter? The Cost of Confusion (The Institute for European Defense and Strategic Studies, 13/14 Golden Square, London W1R 3AG, England; $8), the saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter” has become a kind of public orthodoxy for our time.

As Paul Johnson has written, while civilized people everywhere “condemn terrorism in general and on principle . . . there is often one particular group of terrorists . . . whom they are not prepared to describe as terrorists, but rather as freedom-fighters or guerrillas.” Or, in McGurn’s formulation, “On the contentious issue of terrorism—its distinction from legitimate forms of political struggle, and the means required to combat it—the awful truth is that a practical consensus does not yet exist” in the West— with results such as the freeing of Abul Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro piracy, by the prime minister of Italy; the Greek prime minister’s condemnation of the American strike against Tripoli in April 1986 as a “terrorist action”; and the Reagan Administration’s willingness to swap arms for hostages in Iran and to meet with Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress. “Whether or not we choose to label someone a terrorist,” McGurn charges, “has come to depend on whether or not we favor the idea of a united Ireland, an independent Afghanistan, and so on.” And yet: