Comment Paper 1: Rodin

After reading David Rodin’s “Terrorism Without Intention,” what struck me most was the overbroad and multiple definitions for the term “terrorism.” If one jumps to the conclusion of his argument, where he attempts to tie everything together, I found it interesting and would like to specifically comment on his mention of the United States and its understanding of the word. Rodin briefly touches on the Bush Administration’s understanding of terrorism. It was believed under this administration that the use of force is acceptable if there is a legitimate threat of terrorism by the opposition. This country has made use of force against terrorist organizations in the past. From our ongoing problems with terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the Taliban, to our most recent action in Pakistan in the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the United States is no stranger to these types of military operations. What I am most interested in is the United States’ use of terrorism in the past. Rodin specifically outlines terrorism as using “reckless” action. The United States would surely attest that its use of force in the past (Germany, Japan) was justifiable, I have always been interested to find out exactly what other states or organizations think of our use of force. I find it intriguing that Rodin’s analysis of terrorism does not exactly align with the United States and its past military action, but the fact that the issue is so complicated still raises questions. Overall, as stated in the most recent lecture, the Obama Administration has shown that it is committed to continuing to stop terrorism—a mission the country has taken under long before Sept. 11 2001. In its efforts, it will be interesting to see how the continuing use of drone warfare plays an issue. Regardless, I felt it was important to comment specifically on terrorism first, in order to understand the entire drone warfare situation.