The so-called "war on terror" was officially lost when we insisted on calling it -- well, a "war on terror." Terrorism is a method of projecting force, not an enemy -- and our inability to publicly identify a real enemy pretty much guaranteed that this war would be no more successful than all of those other wars against nebulous, inanimate things (war on poverty, war on drugs, war on illiteracy, etc.). We might just as well have declared war on bad weather, and the results would have been the same.
As far as Iraq is concerned, there was no need -- after the summer of 2003 -- to maintain any illusions about the U.S. commitment to the effort. This was the period of time in which the U.S. Congress -- which couldn't even reach on consensus on funding the war effort in Iraq -- somehow managed to garner unanimous support for a Federal law to protect Americans from . . . now get this, folks . . . TELEMARKETERS.
The War on Terror never even started since we have the same open sore of a border that we had before.
War on a tactic is/was an asinine and cowardly formulation.
More so now.
Like a war on sneak attacks. Or nasty things under rocks.
An civilisation that cannot or will not name the enemy due to whatever expedient reasons, well, ......
Congress also got together recently and agreed to require anti-freeze makers to change the stuff so that it isn't lethal and attractive ... to dogs. Meanwhile, our borders are unguarded and illegals, including terrorists, can enter whenever and wherever they want.