http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...-servant-state

(worth reading, and the article and perspective starting this whole thread is definitely an example of the sad syndrome Andrew Bacevich describes...)

As to defining war, I have not "failed" in that task, I simply have not taken it on yet here in this thread. Even the department of defense shies away from defining war these days.

I think there are important components to something being "war":

1. I believe war must be between two or more complete systems of governance.

A system of governance need not be a state, but must have some form of governing body/system, a security force of some sort, and a distinct population. I think there probably needs to be a territory requirement as well to create a degree of tangibility necessary for war. (So AQ lacks the prerequisite characteristics to participate in war, regardless of what they might declare, or how they might act).

2. War may be legal or illegal, but I believe must be violent.

Many forms of competition occur day in and day out between systems of governance. Usually this competition is legal, but often it is illegal. This is business.

3. War must threaten to compromise the sovereignty of one system of governance to the advantage of the sovereignty of another.

We can say that war is politics or policy by other means, but it is for many reasons, most often to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties. This naturally affects politics, and is a matter of policy.

So, my 5-minute, Army of One stab at defining what the entire US Department of Defense shies away from is as follows:

"War is a violent interaction between two or more systems of governance with the intent of changing the nature of sovereignty between the contestants."