Minor nit.
If terrorism is defined as intentional attacks on civilians to promote a political agenda, then these attacks (or anyway the rockets fired at the American ships) weren't necessarily terrorism.
It is not illegitimate for those opposing the American presence in the area to attack American military targets. Assuming they wore uniforms, didn't hide behind civilians, etc. (Yeah, right!)
Seriously, I don't think it's a good idea to classify all possible attacks on American military targets as terrorism. It blurs a line we should be trying to keep clear.
It's also legitimate for us to kill them for doing so and to change the regime that failed to prevent the attacks.
I agree. However, it is guerilla action.
It is not up to us to make the distinction. Those who are making war have their own list of enemies--which includes pure civilians, gov't agents such as police, and military personnel and equipment such as truck convoys. As cover the terrorists try to blend in with the population, and that population includes every walk of life from shopkeeper to military officers. Unfortunately, inner motivation does not identify terrorists until the outer act.
What is the Fed's clear definition of terrorism?