|
In this case the term "war" is marketing. It sounds better to say we are at war with something rather than just making an effort to stop something (if that makes sense).
WARs are supposed to have definative feel to them. You wage war in order to win. Wars, historicaly, have a time span -- they don't go on forever.
The problem is using this terminology runs contrary to these "nouns".
You can't win a war on drugs. Sure you can slow the spread. You can stop individuals but you will never eradicate it. All you do is criminalize a large portion of your population. I don't see dealing drugs as a "pretty horrible crime" at all. It's capitalism at work. As you point out there are liquor dealers out there that perform, pretty much, the same service. The only difference is upon which side of the law these actions sit.
You can't win a war on terrorism. You can break up cells. You can kill individuals. You can make it harder, but you can't eradicate it. Who are you fighting? What state? Kill one and another rises up, for vengeance is not halted with more vengeance.
You can't win a war on poverty. Who are you fighting? What are your weapons? Even Jesus admitted that there will always be poor, pathetically struggling. Even with more Socialist reform there will always be a strata of income with someone on top and someone on bottom. Sure you can make the number of empoverished smaller but you can't legislate it out of existence.
In the end, each of these WARS should be fought but treating them like and calling them WARS does a disservice to the real solutions -- real solutions don't work like Blitzkreig, they are slow methodical and boring things like policy and bureaucracy.
They aren't sexy in the slightest.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
|