On the ambiguity of the term "War"
     

War is a violent conflict between two powers intended by one power to subjugate a foreign power, to display supremacy over another power or to suppress the perceived wrongdoing of another power. Now, in order to wage war, one must have a clearly defined enemy: a target for the forthcoming aggression. One can not go to war against an idea or a general concept.

To whit, one can not wage a War on Terrorism, a War on Drugs, a War on Poverty, a War on Hunger, or a War on any other ambiguous concept (or even a specific concept, for that matter) or wide generality. However, it seems that our political leadership uses the term "War" at the drop of a hat in order to punctuate what is - for them - a very important issue behind which they need to rally the troops. What could be more serious than a war after all? It is a feel-good term coined so some folks can feel like they’re taking a hard line (what harder line can you take than waging war, after all?).

For instance, “Terror” is not a specific target, so a War on Terror can never be won – it’s not a war but a temper tantrum. There is no target, therefore no goal and lastly, no plan that can ever come to fruition. I’d also like to point out that terrorism will always exist so long as some group feels it needs to retaliate against a larger, more powerful aggressor. Terrorism is an ambiguous concept that changes over time, and there have always been and always will be terrorists. You can call them revolutionaries, freedom fighters, activists, antagonists, protagonists or what have you, but in the end, fighting a War on Terrorism is to say that you are going to kill off all people who dissent in a loud and sometimes violent voice.

  

Now, you can point at a specific terrorist (say, bin Laden and al-Qaeda, Hammas or the Taliban) and declare war on that specific target because they are terrorists. Afghanistan seems to have gone fairly well, for instance, because there was a target and a goal. You can have a list and go down the list group by group, and you can make a declaration on a case by case basis, but let’s face it … a War on Terror can never be won because you can not send troops after terror.

Anyone who disagrees with me is free to prove me wrong. Try this: make a public declaration that drunk driving is the enemy and must be destroyed. Go on, do it. Then try to succeed in your personal vendetta. Tell any cop about your crusade, and he’ll tell you that you can not go around just beating up drunks randomly, and even if you do, it’s not legal and it will not garner you any success in your declared goal. Now, you can target drunk drivers specifically or establishments that promote or allow drunk driving. But … you can not fight a fight against drunk driving itself.

Likewise, you can not have a War on Drugs, but you can declare war against a specific cartel and destroy that cartel ... then maybe target another cartel, then another (which I would be in favor of, by the way) ... but you can not declare a “War on Drugs” and expect a realistic outcome.