[aroman]

I'm not sure why my answer merited either a down vote or a sarcastic response, but I regardless, you can work to minimize terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties. I'm not sure where you're drawing the false dichotomy from.

[jlgreco]

You were probably downvoted because a "War on Terror" is not necessary to minimize terrorism. Nor, as you point out, does minimizing necessitate destroying our rights and liberties.

"The War on..." is a phrase that signals to us that we should be on the lookout for crude solutions that do more harm than good. It is a crude phrase that perfectly embodies the simplistic attitude that inevitably backs whatever program the phrase is being used to describe.

Wherever there is a "War on..." there is almost certainly something that we could be doing smarter, rather than harder.

[mpyne]

I didn't downvote. I also didn't think I was being sarcastic, to you at least.

I don't personally live under the false dichotomy that an unending "WAR ON TERROR" is required to suppress terrorism. But nor do I fall into the trope that the solution is to simply let anyone inflict any attack that they wish.

As you say, it is possible to actually fight terrorism without destroying our rights and liberties, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[aroman]

I didn't mean to imply it was you who down voted me. It seems we're really on the same page here. I wasn't aware of all the strings and stigma attached to the "war on $foo" phrase.

My point was simply to object to the idea that doing nothing and simply pretending the outside world doesn't exist or that there aren't people who wish us harm out there is a Bad Idea™.

I do of course agree that open ended campaigns which cripple our rights without clear and predictable expectations is very bad, if not as bad.

To rephrase, then: I want to address and fight terrorism, but I don't want a blind or self-harming "war" on terror.