A long war?

When, in the immediate aftermath of the appalling events of 11 September 2001, President George W. Bush declared a 'global war on terror', a number of pundits were deeply unhappy. At least the Pentagon has adjusted its language and now defines the West's predicament as 'a long war'. This is better, but still problems remain: is it really a 'war', and if not, what is it? Who or what is it against? What is it about? How should it be conducted? Whatever we call the conflict, it is likely to be long. The use of armed force offers no short cuts, and unless used with skill and restraint it may do more harm than good. The length of its engagements, when they occur, will be measured, not in days, but in weeks or even months, and will seldom appear conclusive. It will be that most frustrating of conflicts, a war of attrition. Success, when it comes, will do so slowly and incrementally. The military may protest that this is not the kind of war that they joined up to fight, and taxpayers that they see little return for their money. But this is the only war we are likely to get: it is also the only kind of peace.