Remember stateless terrorism? Those individual actors and shadowy networks that represented the gravest danger of the 21st century? Those 19 hijackers armed only with knives and boxcutters (and probably mace and pepper spray)?

One of the interesting things about our post-9/11 world is how reflexively states – especially the U.S. – have combatted terrorism by attacking states. Of course, the prime example of this is our attack on Iraq, a state whose only connection to 9/11 was, well, that Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy who (along with a lot of other really bad guys) was “destabilizing” the Middle East.

But what of Israel’s conflict with Hizbollah, and its attacks on Lebanon (a state recently heralded for its supposedly tight embrace of democracy)? I have heard Hizbollah referred to as the terrorism A team, a state within a state, a transnational Shia resistance group, and a pawn of Iran and (Sunni) Syria. I have heard that Hizbollah overreached and invited its own destruction, Hizbollah has rallied the Lebanese people to its side, or that Syria and Iran are skillfully spawning more regional chaos.

Surely there is some overlap between these seemeing contradictions, but they also represent an incomplete understanding – five years after 9/11 – about just what a terrorist group is, who should be held responsible for acts of terrorism, and above all how we should respond. After 9/11, we heard a lot about how we would be facing a new kind of war. Instead, we seem to be slipping into the oldest kinds of war in the Middle East.

Related posts:

1. Stop Bucking and Start Learning
2. What Not to Do About Yemen
3. Promoting Democracy
4. Lend Money to Iran: Why Not?
5. Picking Sides: yes to Hamas, no to Taliban. Russia and US at crossroads