Political Violence Terms in Argentina's Dirty War

One of the greatest challenges in the field of political science is providing definitions for terms that can be widely-accepted.  This is no different within the realm of political violence.  Terms such as terrorism, political violence and guerrilla warfare can be interpreted in many different ways to apply to a myriad of situations.  We will use the “Dirty War” of Argentina as an example to see how well these terms apply and in so doing see just how difficult it can be to provide precise definitions in the case of political matters.

The Dirty War took place during the 1970s as a government attempt to eliminate left-wing political opponents.  Historians estimate that between 10,000 and 30,000 Argentines were killed, many of whom were apprehended by the authorities and never seen again.  After a military coup d’état, a military junta occupied the presidency and imposed a brutal dictatorship.  Their first mission was to eliminate any dissidents and in so doing established detention camps where suspected rebels were jailed and tortured.  At first, the military leadership faced little opposition as left-wing guerrillas had been a force for twenty years leading up to the Dirty War; however, after egregious human rights violations the opposition grew considerably (“Dirty War”).

First, we will analyze the appropriateness of use of the term terrorism when referring to the Dirty War.  The textbook defines terrorism as threatened or actual use of violence for political purposes by non-state actors, directed particularly against civilian targets (Samuels, 2013).  The first half of this definition applies very well to the Dirty War when thought of as state terrorism.  The governmental authorities used violence (and threatened it) for political purposes, which was stopping the left-wing opposition (which eventually grew to be anyone that opposed the government).  In this sense, terrorism was carried out.  However, when considering the second half of the definition, it cannot apply to the Dirty Wars, for it was indeed carried out by state actors (governmental authorities) and not necessarily directed towards just civilian targets, but also to guerrilla fighters. Thus, Samuels’ definition here is too specific as it can only be applied to certain acts of terrorism that are not state-sponsored. 

Next, the term political violence will be evaluated in its usage regarding the Dirty War.  Samuels defines political violence as the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals.  This definition is broader than the previous one and hence applies very well to the Dirty War.  The military junta in control sought to capture, torture and kill dissidents in order to stop political opposition, thus seeking to achieve a political goal.  In the political violence section of the text, it says“governments often perpetrate political violence upon their own citizens in order to consolidate power – by repressing, imprisoning or even murdering individuals or entire groups,” a description that applies perfectly to the Dirty War (Samuels, 2013).   

Finally, the term guerrilla warfare will be assessed in its usage regarding the Dirty War.  The textbook defines it as wars in which small groups of insurgents use irregular military tactics, such as sabotage and ambushes, to engage the state’s military forces (Samuels, 2013).  Before and during the dirty war, left-wing extremist groups had been involved in bombing attacks on numerous buildings.  Of these include the Sheraton Hotel and a full theatre in Buenos Aires (Chardy and “Peronists Blamed in Hotel Bombing”).  While these acts also fulfill the terrorism description, much of the Dirty War can be considered a guerrilla war according to Samuels’ definition.   

Political science terms regarding political violence are used often in today’s media and classrooms and for that reason they can be used in a variety of contexts.  In the case of the dirty wars, the abovementioned terms of political violence and guerrilla warfare apply very well to the Dirty War when considering Samuels’ definition, while his definition of terrorism is too specific to apply in this case.  Thus, by applying particular terms to specific events, one can gain a true understanding of the term and appreciate just how difficult it can be to concretely label political issues.

Works Cited

Chardy, Alfonso. "Daily News - Google News Archive Search." Google News.             http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wuQeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0EYEAAAAIBAJ&pg            =2828,4751834&dq (accessed November 7, 2012).

“Dirty War.” Britannica Online Encyclopedia.          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/165129/Dirty-War (accessed November 7, 2012).

"Peronists Blamed in Hotel Bombing." Google News. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z94QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yosDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7258,1915009&dq (accessed November 7, 2012).

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Boston, Mass.: Pearson Education, 2013.