Being able to "Name the Enemy" is important; in this case, Naming the enemy, unless you're willing to call it "Islam" or even "Radical Islam" is difficult, and it becomes a "War on Terror" which makes as much sense as calling the war against Japan a "War on Naval Aviation".
But nobody asked me about it at the time :)
...it becomes a "War on Terror" which makes as much sense as calling the war against Japan a "War on Naval Aviation".
The two of you have the key. From the beginning the term “War on Terror” made no sense, but we didn’t want to antagonize all Muslims – including our own homegrown Nation of Islam. (Who needs a fifth column at home?) But if you can’t say the enemy’s name, how can you fight him, much less win?
We had quite a bit of propaganda, much of it painfully accurate, as to the mind set of our enemy. But the media began a slow but steady campaign to make the connection to Vietnam, and it worked.
The second time was in 2001 when both Houses of Congress passed a Joint Resolution for President Bush to use military force against the terrorists, and "any nation harboring them." The language is very similar to what Congress said two centuries prior, in dealing with the other Muslim threat.
The point is, it is valid to declare war without naming another nation. It has been done before. But unfortunately, almost no politicians or reporters are aware of the history of the prior event under President Jefferson.
Congressman Billybob