In the aftermath of September 11, President Bush labeled the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as “acts of war,” and in response he declared a “War on Terrorism.”

In a recent op-ed commentary published in this newspaper, I questioned whether it makes sense to speak of our nation as being currently “at war.” I suggested that the word “war” normally describes a conflict between two sovereign nations, while Osama bin Laden and his followers do not constitute such a nation. I also contrasted the situation in which we now find ourselves with the very different situation created by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

Here I would like to build on that argument by looking at the words “terrorist” and “terrorism,” and I would like to propose that the idea of a “war on terrorism” doesn’t make sense, not only because “war” implies a struggle between sovereign nations, but also because we are using the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” in ways that can only breed confusion about who is and who is not our enemy.

After the September 11 attacks, President Bush identified our enemy as “terrorism,” and he declared his determination to lead a crusade that would “erase” this “evil” from the earth. The response was a surge of patriotic feeling among most Americans. At last we had a clearly defined enemy, one that seemed unequivocally evil; for the “terrorists” of September 11 went to great lengths to kill thousands of innocent people, and if such behavior is not “evil,” then what is? But unfortunately, we’ve all been raised on a diet of Hollywood movies in which the Bad Guys act as they do simply because they are Bad. They do Evil because they are Evil-Doers, and both in the movies and in video games, there’s nothing we can do about such Evil-Doers except Blow Them Away. In real life, however, people simply don’t do evil for the sake of doing evil; rather all people find some way of persuading themselves that what they are doing is good, and that’s as true of terrorists as of everyone else.

Once we achieve a little distance from any particular conflict, it is clear that almost all “terrorists” see themselves, and are often seen by substantial groups of supporters, as “freedom fighters.” The ambiguity of these terms is obvious to us when we look at Kashmir, where India labels as terrorists the rebels who seek to join this majority-Muslim territory to Pakistan. For many decades India has refused to allow a referendum in which the people of Kashmir could determine their own destiny, and to many of us it seems clear that some justice here lies on the side of the people that the Indian government calls “terrorists.” Or consider the suicide bombers of Israel: In the eyes of other Arabs they are freedom fighters, using the only weapons available to them in resistance to an illegal Israeli occupation of Arab lands, and even many Americans recognize that some justice here lies on the side of the Palestinians, even while we may deplore the tactics that they are using.

As we reflect on the ambiguities of the word “terrorist,” we might do well to remember that if this word had been available in 1776, the British would have labeled George Washington and the men who signed the Declaration of Independence as “terrorists.” We might also remember that the techniques of modern terrorism were largely originated by two groups for whom many Americans have considerable sympathy: the Irish gunmen who rebelled against British occupation during the years from 1916 to 1922, and the Irgun and Stern Gang groups in Israel who attacked both British army forces and Arabs in the years between 1945 and 1948. In both cases, acknowledged terrorists ended as honored government leaders: Eamon De Valera and Menachem Begin are the most famous examples.

Thus far, I believe, our government and its allies have shown both prudence and determination in the effort to dismantle the al-Qaida organization and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. If after the September 11 attacks, President Bush had defined the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as acts of mass murder, had laid out the evidence for seeing the al-Qaida organization as responsible for these crimes, and had declared his determination to bring the criminals to justice, I could fully support him. But while President Bush’s actions have been relatively restrained, his rhetoric – in declaring the enemy as “terrorism” itself, and in promising to rid the earth of this evil – has opened up some dangerous possibilities. For if we are “at war” today, not simply with the al-Qaida organization or with its Taliban supporters in Afghanistan, but with “terrorism” itself, where will we stop? Are we obligated to send in American soldiers to support the government of Sri Lanka in its war against the Tamil Liberation Tigers of Sri Lanka, or to suppress those Catholic and Protestant groups in Northern Ireland (both sides are guilty) who have employed terror tactics?

Although the concept of a “War on Terrorism” is essentially confused, ambiguous, and contradictory, nevertheless the United States Congress has granted President Bush essentially unlimited war powers, including the power to suspend our constitutional liberties. Furthermore, our president has said to peoples everywhere, if you do not accept our definition of who is a “terrorist” and who is a “freedom fighter,” we will regard you as terrorists and thus as absolutely evil, and we will feel free to attack you. In fact, it is clear that some groups in the Bush administration are eager to press on with new military adventures that are likely to be far more disruptive to American life than the war with the Taliban.

The most frequently mentioned target is Iraq – not because we have any proofs that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the September 11 attacks, but because we think (with some justice) that he is a Bad Guy. But there is also speculation that instead we may intervene in the guerrilla war in Colombia, simply to prove that we’re also willing to attack non-Muslim terrorists. (But in Colombia too, both sides have used terror tactics.)

To this point, President Bush’s actions have been far more temperate than his rhetoric, and there is increasing hope that cooler heads will prevail – like others, I see Colin Powell as the principal force for restraint in the current administration. But at present, the president has carte blanche to send American military forces into combat anywhere he wishes, and such dictatorial power seems to be a clear violation of the constitution, which restricts to Congress the power to declare war. Furthermore, the rhetoric about a “War on Terrorism” lingers on, to stir up turmoil among the American people whenever our political leaders and the media see fit, and to preserve a sense of national unity behind any action that the current administration might take. As a consequence, anyone who questions any Republican proposal – for new tax benefits for the wealthy, or for new restrictions on our civil liberties – risks being labeled unpatriotic.

The sense of national unity stirred up by the rhetoric of the “War on Terrorism” may be emotionally satisfying, but these warm feelings rest on very shallow foundations, and the stifling of debate in the United States by proclamations about “United We Stand” isn’t necessarily good either for the people of this country or for the world.

Burton Hatlen is professor of English at the University of Maine.