The U.S. has been a roll with terrorist designations of late. At nearly the same time it was suggested that designating part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group, it also put Lebanese group, Fatah Al Islam on the list.
Fighting between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Fatah Al Islam began in late May, when the group killed 23 unarmed Lebanese soldiers. Although the group has been subdued to some extent, battle continues in the Lebanese Palestinian Refugee Camp, Nahar Al Barid, the group's home base, and in other refugee camps.
The addition of Fatah Al Islam to the Foreign Terrorist Organization list brings this Who's Who of Global Terrorists to 43 members. Foreign terrorist organizations can have funds in the United States frozen, and are not allowed entry to the United States. Neither of these issues are serious impediments to the group, which doesn't have assets in the U.S. and whose members are fighting a local battle in Lebanon.
Given that the group's aims are not entirely clear, why did the State Department bother putting it on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorist list? The answer lies in American policy goals related to Lebanon. These goals, as the American statement tacitly and explicitly remarks, include ensuring that:
- Syrian influence in Lebanon is rebuffed (Fatah Al Islam members appear to be supported by Syria or Syrian-backed Palestinian groups);
- The current Lebanse government and its security forces are supported;
- Lebanon's stability is preserved.
These policy objectives are being carried out through an instrument, Executive Order 13221, created at the end of 2002 to curtail terrorist funding of terrorist groups with international reach. While Fatah Al Islam arguably has some resonance beyond Lebanon (some of its fighters may be foreigners who have been in Iraq or elsehwhere), they are not a direct threat to the United States in the sense intended by Executive Order 13221. Claims that it has direct links to Al Qaeda's core group are overreaching: Fatah Al Islam has established that it favors Al Qaeda's jihadist ideology.
The U.S., like other countries, has the right to establish and use ethical and legal means to shape foreign policy to its advantage. But the tools used should fit the task. If the definition of terrorism is stretched too far, eventually it will break and serve no purpose. In the meantime, the designation of group after group as a terrorist organization will cause Americans and others needless fear. We shouldn't add groups to the list of foreign terrorist organizations, using legislative instruments suggesting they post a direct threat to American national security, if they don't.