Personally I think there's a difference between war (the physical act of conflict and killing...Tom's foxhole level) and being at war (which is more of a political/legal position). None of our Indian Wars were declared, and Congress repeatedly refused to allow any sort of recognition (brevets, mainly) for officers involved in those conflicts (at the time the Medal of Honor was restricted to enlisted men...and before anyone argues, look at the award dates for medals given to officers...they are all after 1891 or so). Yet these were clearly wars...low intensity from the POV of the US, but major conflicts from the Native side.

To carry Slap's point out, trade wars provide another example. I also tend to find that the statement "war is war" is often shorthand for intellectual laziness or an unwillingness to examine certain points or areas of discussion. War may indeed be war, but it has shadings and meanings that give it an almost infinite amount of complexity. It may be about killing, but the amount of killing (and those killed) can vary greatly depending on the context and the existence of an "at war" sentiment (or lack thereof). It might also exist in another realm to gain economic advantage, where killing is limited or nonexistent.

Can't say I'm fully in either major "camp" as they have appeared so far in this thread, but I'm probably closer to Tom's position.