Lately I've come to a very good thought, I guess. It was while I was watching TV, and seen the coverage of the umpteenth declaration of the good ol' "War on Terrorism" speeches of Bush. Here's what I thought. I thought that all arrests and successful investigations of latest acts of terrorism come from countries where these investigations are handled by police forces, while military is never, or hardly involved. On the other hand, we (the US) have employed a lot of military forces and come up with a lot of nothing. This made me think that the term "war on terrorism" is not a matching metaphor. While war implies that you have a concrete opponent, a clear objective, and clear conditions that make you a winner or vanquished, the struggle against terrorism isn't so easy. Therefor, anyone who expects to win this "war" is misled, moreover, this so-called war must be considered as a permanent struggle against an abstract opponent, which will never be won. A "victory" in this case will mean that terrorism is only subdued for some time, forced to hide and remain inactive because of a lack of possible targets, and the increased danger of the terrorists' plans being uncovered through agents infiltrating into the terrorist networks. History proves this, as terrorist organizations which have been infiltrated by the police and intelligence agencies usually grind to a halt, and are very limited in their operations.