"Global War on Terror" - The Case of the Missing Definition

Have you heard the adage that "A problem well stated is a problem half solved" ? This adage is attributed to Charles F. Ketteringthe inventor of the electric starter for automobiles. Look HERE to read more about this great inventor. From the linked page:

"His book of patents contains more than 300 separate applications that range from a portable lighting system for farms to coolants for refrigerators and air conditioners. Other patents included a World War I "aerial torpedo," a device for the treatment of venereal disease, and an incubator for premature infants. Duco paint and Ethyl gasoline were also his ideas and he was instrumental in their development. He had interest in the development of diesel engines, solar energy, and was a pioneer in the application of magnetism to medical diagnostic techniques."

So definition of the problem was important to this great American inventor. How about a definition of the "Global War on Terror?" Sound impossible? Let's try an easier one. What about using the Scientific Method? Won't that make our work easier? From the linked Wiki article please pay special attention to STEP 1:

" 1. Define the question "

Here is another example of the first step in the truth-finding process using the scientific method CLICK HERE , our best method today:

"1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena."

OK, I understand we are fighting a war, not doing a science project, so maybe asking our leaders to define "Global War on Terror" is really asking for too much. After all, don't we all KNOW what the global war on terror is? It's a war against terrorists right? Maybe I need to look at the problem from another perspective.

General Ulysses S. Grant was known as "Unconditional Surrender" Grant - because that is what he demanded from his adversaries during the American Civil War. It was clear then, and now what was required: that the enemy lay down their arms with no conditions or battle would ensue. So my question is, who has to surrender right now for us to "win" the "Global War on Terror?" Please don't say Osama bin Laden, since this issue has been addressed in another article on this blog. So if Grant were in charge today - who would he present surrender terms to? Well we all KNOW this is a global war on terror so who can we ask to surrender?

How about U.S Military Veterans? After cruelly long deployments perhaps we need them to surrender when they get home? From the article:

"Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups."

So the enemy is our own military veterans? So we aren't really after middle-eastern guys? Okay so who is the enemy?

It seems that anyone using a nebulous term like "Global War on Terror" is either not aware of the dangerous nature of an undeclared war on the undefinable, or is aware and is using the statement as a blank check for a war on anything. The outcome can only be a war without end when the end cannot be defined.

Americans must demand a definition of the "Global War on Terror" or at least a statement of surrender terms, and specifically who is to surrender to bring an end to the war - that is... if ending the war really is a goal.
----------------
UPDATE May 3, 2009