the true conservative:

munich, you are, to put it simply, missing the point.

The "war on terror" is not a war in the WWII or Vietnam sense - at least not primarily. It is a "war on drugs" "war on poverty" kind of war. Just as in the war on drugs there are some military and police actions - witness the fighting in Columbia to stamp out the drug cartals in recent years. But the war on drugs is not attempting to wipe out every person who could use or sell drugs. Neither is the war on terror trying to wipe out everyone who could become an Islamic terrorist - presumably, that includes everyone too, since anyone can convert to Islam.

The "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" are just as stupid. Is the goal to defeat drugs (whatever that means) or to eliminate poverty? If so, it's an impossible goal. If not, then they should be called by a more accurate name. The same thing with the war on terror. Is there some way to "defeat" the concept or terrorism? Describe how. Describe what a victory would look like.

Words that describe states of being, types of acts, or abstract concepts cannot be the object of a war - at least not a war with any hope of being susccessfully executed. Therefore, when someone advocates such a war, I think it's appropriate to ask what they really want.