We're at "Authorization for Use of Military Force"!
We're at "Police Action"!
"WAR!" hasn't been declared.
Even the CFR "gets it". Can't you?
The Aftermath of Terror: Domestic and International Law and U.S. Foreign Policy October 3, 2001
One issue confronting U.S. policymakers is how to define the struggle and implications. At times, the administration has appeared to adopt a classical use-of-force paradigm, rooted in state-to-state relations, governed by the rules of war. At others, it has evoked a kind of police action, more focused on individual responsibility and governed by international criminal law. In fact, the enterprise is a hybrid, with aspects that belong both to the use-of-force (attacking states that harbor terrorism; targeting terrorist infrastructure in foreign countries) and the police-work (investigation and establishment of culpability; rendition/extradition of suspects; national efforts to freeze assets and round up suspects, etc) paradigms.
But no "WAR!".
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't suppose the 2900+ dead in NYC or the dead GI's in Afganisterrible would be as persnickety.
Stay safe.
BD