I think your comments on democracy could be argued to a point, but I understand your premise. Yes, I thought you were joking originally when you posted it. John Robb didn't acuse any warriors of "playing at war", he accused the state, and I think that is a fair assessment. You're playing at war if you don't have clear and achievable military goals. In Iraq I'll argue we're playing at war. If we were serious we would mobilize our population, greatly increase our combat power, and deny safe havens (Syria and Iran). We would do what was necessary to achieve the goal, if we're not prepared to do that, then we shouldn't get involved. As Robb stated we're playing a balancing game to maintain market health and to support some ambiguous moral objectives (always gray).

I want to hear more about the so what factor of undeclared war. How does it change our response options (doctrinal approaches) to solving the problem at hand or achieving our national security objectives? How do you sell an undeclared war to the American public? Maybe you're on to something, but I'm not completely sold on there are only two types of war as you stated, but I'm definitely going to think about it.

I think what we're attempting to get at is clarity of definitions not just in the joint world, but in the interagency, and I would coalition to ensure we're all directing fires from the same map. This clarity of thought will help us get to a collective strategy.