I really take issue with the phrase "war on terror."

As if the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" weren't enough, the war on terror has become the preeminent battle on which to bet one's patriotic bounty.

For starters, other than the general fear associated with war and the presumably warring enemy (I'll touch on this more later), the word "terror," as it is used by the US government and mainstream media, has no meaning in relation to any kind of traditional war.

If we were talking about a battle of ideologies or legislation, like the war on drugs, it might make sense that the word "war" be used alongside something as abstract and subjective as the word "terror." After all, drugs and poverty (and the ideas that we can legislate either) are terms that, more often than not, evade simple definition. Hence the obviously metaphorical "wars" against both.

But "terror," as we've come to know it, represents the acts of terrorists. A terrorist is an individual who sometimes works in conjunction with a larger organization, but often doesn't. Therefore, "terror" doesn't exist as any kind of organized army or governed country (like, say Nazi Germany did in WWII), but is instead an abstract term, implemented solely for its ability to strike fear in the heart of the average tv-watcher. What was once an emotion internal to the individual (usually reserved commercially for horror films, haunted houses and amusement park rides), has now become a buzz-word on which to stage bloody wars. No metaphors here.

The word "terror" causes fear in many, and it is obvious why such language (usually coupled with images of people from the Middle East) was used to wage war against entire countries. The US government couldn't have convinced the world (or even most Americans) of the need to invade a country if there was really very little to be "terrified" of. Come to think of it, the terror misnomer didn't quite work on the rest of the world anyway. What did they know that we didn't?

Most troubling of all, the real losers are the soldiers from all sides, and the men, women and children of Iraq and Afghanistan. People who have no ties to any terrorist organization, but suffer because we wage war against a concept.

------------

The following quote by Barack Obama gives hope that the cowboy rhetoric and blind preemption of the current administration is on its way out.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The key to this statement is "engaging the world." For the first time, we can talk with leaders of all nations, including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and others, to form alliances not against a generalized or perceived cultural or religious threat, but against terrorists who stand to bring trouble to the entire world. All Muslims aren't terrorists and all terrorists aren't Muslim. As soon as we make these distinctions, we can, as Obama says, "restore our values" and begin to heal.