Even from a military strategic point, I cannot see a whole lot of reason to continue.

From a certain political point of view I certainly can....

Even if we crush the Taliban in Afghanistan and Karzai's successor is Thomas Jefferson returned to life, what good does that do us if Osama and Friends are sitting in Pakistani coffee houses laughing their asses off and updating their Friendster accounts?

Nobel prize for public speaking IMO

This

Well it does the US good because a 6' something jackass in a coffee house is much easier for a USAF predator to spot and blow to tiny particles......

lol

Serious questions, how would you characterized 9/11 attacks on WTCs, Pentagon, and on Capital or White House (thwarted of course)? It's a crime of course as I suppose the attack on Pearl Harbor was a crime too. Can an act of war only occur between two sovereign nations? BTW this isn't a loaded question as I'm not sure myself how to characterize attacks like 9/11.

War is and has always been simply the continuation of politics by other means.

Then 9/11 attacks are an act of war by this definition correct?

Hey now, I used to know a Norwegian former service member who claimed the Norwegian SF was one of the most secretive and best in the world. He had nothing nice to say about the Norwegian Rregular army though.

Wars have changed over the ages. Once upon a time, wars were just fought by professionals, and combat stayed away from civilians.

I can't get too interested in the semantic debate, personally. Defining "war" only seems important insofar as it implies certain legal status (either in our own statutes or internationally).

No, war has always been simply the continuation of politics by other means.

To dispute this idea, please provide an antithesis.

In the sense of being a preemptive war like Bush v Iraq, yeah.

"Crime" and "act of war" can overlap though:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2331.html (a) and (b) seem to have nation-states in mind but that (c) part might well be interpreted very loosely.

Aren't acts of war committed by states against states?

Was the OK city bombing an act of war?

I am but I'm an irregular poster/lurker.

Note too that Team Bush also long resisted treating the Gitmo folks as military prisoners so as not to have to admit to POW status. If not nation-state and not military under USC18, what then but criminal and not an act of war? What a mess.

Well it was....at least to the extent that the Waco incident was.....

Well it could be argued that the Gitmo detainees were not POW status because they did formally belong to a "sovereign entity" declaring war upon the US....but then again, that has little to do with the very real moral or ethical status of the whole mess doesn't it?.....

Yes but also calling it an "act of war" (which under U.S. law has a very specific meaning) really muddied the water. Bush was in effect simultaneously saying that they were military and not-military. Not that Obama's done much to unmuddy the waters.

para-military organization FTW

This question is better directed to Montius as I was responding to his definition. According to his definition (which I'm not making any judgement about) then what you say is not right.

(playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of curiosity here, of course )

The "act of war" was against the Iraqi military (and on the other/second front: The Taliban in Afghanistan).

Isn't the legal status what this all boils down to?

In the sense that it killed people and destroyed govt property. I mean how much different is an attack on a US warship than an attack on the Pentagon/an attack on the US Capital building/an attack on the White House. It seems to me the distinction comes in on what entity is doing the attacking (at least for some people).

Of there's an overlap which applies to Pear Harbor. However, as Case Close implies an attack by a sovereign nation such as the attack on Pearl Harbor is generally speaking viewed as an act of war. Not necessarily so for the 9/11 attacks.

I am referring not to the pedantic, literary definition of war, but the heart of the matter, to the duel. War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale. Countless duels go to make up war, but a picture of it as a whole can be formed by imagining a pair of wrestlers. Each tries though physical force to compel the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to throw his opponent in order to make him incapable of further resistance. That is the true analytical nature of war.

So is it is the very intellectual root nature of politics.

It matters little whether the source of this conflict is from traditionally recognized political entities (such as nation states) or actors acting on their behalf (various other socio-political groups filling the same monopolistic role).