This research presents an analysis of U.S. laws surrounding terrorism to assess the effect they have on military operations in asymmetric conflicts. Modern conflicts utilize unconventional approaches, such as co-opting or informing, as decisive operations in pursuit of military objectives. This research evaluates the extent to which U.S. laws on terror proscribes viable options to military leaders during combat operations. This is accomplished through an introduction of U.S. terror laws and their intended purpose, the difficulty surrounding defining what a "terrorist" is, and case studies of two organizations listed by the U.S. State Department as terrorists. Content of the research also includes historical applications of terrorism to assess whether terrorism is acultural (not culture specific), or is it a method used by a particular culture in pursuit of its interests. Findings from this research and analysis of information indicate that terrorism is a strategy or a tactic--not an ideology. As currently written, U.S. laws do not distinguish between acts of terror and the ideology that employs it. Consequently, the laws restrict tactical options available to military forces conducting operations in asymmetric environments.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)