Are drone strikes acts of terrorism?

US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have killed several thousands of individuals, among them hundreds of civilians. Numerous scholars of human rights and international law engage in lively debates about the legality of these assassinations, or, as it is commonly phrased, targeted killings. For the people in communities where drone strikes are common, for example in northwest Pakistan, the effects on their lives are tremendous. According to the report Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan, the constant presence of drones “terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.” This illustration of the effects of drone strikes on affected communities sounds frighteningly similar to the reactions describe after major terrorist attacks. Especially the existential fear and the inability to protect oneself seem to be key elements in both the consequences of drone strikes and terror attacks. But the report continues: “These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims.” The strategy of double tap drone attacks has its equivalent in terrorist twin bombings to increase the level of fear that these attacks aim to provoke. After comparing some of the the effects of drone war and terror attacks on communities we are faced with one important question: Are drone strikes acts of terrorism?

As usually in the academic discussion, there are as many definitions of terrorism as there are scholars working on the topic. I personally believe that a good definition is a simple one. Terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid suggests twelve components of definitions of terrorism of which I only used three, deliberately neglecting the others. In a first attempt to find my own definition of terrorism, I suggest the following:

Terrorism is the attempt to spread fear among people belonging to a certain group (of considerable size) through the use of physical violence.

The three key elements of my definition are (1) the intention behind the perpetrators actions to terrorize, (2) the (attempted) spreading of fear and (3) the use of physical violence. Let me explain why I deem these three characteristics as crucial and why I exclude others (for example the political motivation behind attacks or attacking of civilians). I believe that the motivation for attacks by individuals or groups is mainly (but not always) political. For them, terrorizing is not an end but a mere means to achieve their political goals. They terrorize people in order to show them the weakness of the system they live in, a system that is unable to satisfy their fundamental desire to live. It is only when people have this mistrust in their own system that terrorists see their chance to change the existing system according to their ideology. This already implicates that the direct victims of terrorist attacks are not the real target of the perpetrators.

Provoking existential fear for oneself or other members of one’s group makes physical violence a necessity. Other forms of violence or even non-violent techniques are not part of my definition, because I don’t believe that they would evoke the intended level of fear and because we would step on a slippery slope. If we allow other techniques, what "amount of fear" makes terrorism, where is the line? I, therefore, propose to draw the line at the point where individuals attempt to create existential fear among a group of people, the fear to die or lose someone in an attack. This fear is generally evoked by physical violence.

It seemed important to me to include that the group of people the attack(s) attempt to frighten should be of considerable size simple because otherwise every wife-beater who terrorizes his family by spreading fear would have to be considered a terrorist. A nightmare for homeland security.

I was struggling with myself about if or if not I should include the political motivation of a group or individual that commits the attack(s) in the definition but I decided not to. The reason is simple: If a person or group without any political motivation attempts to spread fear among a community through the use of physical violence, they terrorize them in the truest sense of the word. Well, someone who intends to terrorize people on a big scale should be considered a terrorist, regardless of his/her/their motivation. I admit that this is a rather exceptional case, but that doesn’t make it impossible. One could argue that this would make serial killers terrorists as well, but this is not necessary the case. The key factor in this question is what a killer primarily intends to achieve. If it is simply the pleasure of killing, we cannot speak of terrorism, but only if the primary aim is to spread fear (regardless of the fact if this is a means for something or an end in itself).

I don’t see why a definition of terrorism should be restricted to civilian victims. If an individual or a group of people attempt to spread fear amongst combatants this should be considered terrorism as well. The important criteria is that the attack is not primarily aimed at directly affecting the enemy’s military power but by terrorizing their troops. I agree that there are cases where a distinction between the two becomes blurry, think for example about booby traps. Are they primarily intended to reduce the enemy’s military strength or to spread fear amongst their soldiers, or are both aims equally important to the terrorists? I guess we would have to ask trapper.

So, can US drone strikes be considered terrorism? I would say yes and no. On the one hand they cannot be considered terrorism as long as the US is not intending to provoke fear among for example Waziris. There might be conspiracy theories that say so, but since we have no proof of the validity of those assertions I prefer to stick to the known facts. In my opinion drone strikes are intended to kill enemy combatants and to a small degree also high level terrorists. But on the other hand targeted killing creates fear just like terrorism does. Drone strikes are, therefore, perceived as terrorism by those who have to live under drones. 

It is general knowledge that fear leads to anger and anger to hatred. The islamophobia in some parts of the western world as reaction to 9/11 can serve as an example. Targeted killing, even though I don’t consider it terrorism per definition, should be stopped or strongly limited simply because it rather aggravates than solves the problem.