By narrowing the definition of who the enemy is, the salubrious side-effect is to eliminate defining those whose behavior is the same but whose target is someone else as the enemy.

This reduces what might be a moral struggle to a political one. Political struggles are more limited and victory is easier to achieve. Moral struggles are more all-inclusive, and require all the combatants to define their behavior in moral terms whether they want to or not.

It's interesting that the radical Muslim groups (as well as fundamentalists of other religions) will justify their positions using moral arguments that include a definition of the enemy as both subhuman and inherently evil. Moral arguments that raise the issue of behavior rather than identity as the hallmark of morality are the only effective way to oppose this kind of argument.

To define the enemy narrowly in political terms is, as you have correctly observed, Phil, to create an easily-identifiable target. It will not target the philosophical basis that this enemy uses to justify itself and its actions, nor will it prevent the use of that philosophy to recruit new "martyrs".

The only "warfare" that will achieve the broader objective of ending terrorist activity except as an abberation (we will always have criminals) is one that addresses basic questions of justice, physical and intellectual freedom, access to diverse information, personal safety, and equal economic opportunity. Wherever one looks, even in the past, if terrorism exists as an expression of political will, at least one of these issues has not been addressed. Insofar as no nation (even the US) is perfect, the self-examination necessary to pursue those goals is difficult to conduct.

The narrow definition will do to fight the current battle. The broader one must be implicit if we are to win the war.

Regards--
Mary Anne