One of the things that has characterized the bloody wars of the past is that they were between political and geographic entities. I guess that is what has bothered me about the “War on Terror.” It is not a war against a state or even a definable group of people located in one geographic area.

The “War on Terror” does not fit the historic definition of war. It is a “war” against an ill-defined enemy (is it everybody who hates America and wishes us ill?). First it was Osama bin Laden. Then al-Qaida. Then anybody who harbored terrorists. Then Afghanistan and the Taliban. Then Iraq because of the alleged connection to al-Qaida, which we now know was inconsequential and unconnected to Sept. 11.

Who or what is next? Are we on a slippery slope of perpetual war against an ever-present enemy?

We know that since the invasion of Iraq, the numbers entering al-Qaida’s ranks have swelled. Iraq has become the major recruitment tool for militants around the world who would do harm to America. We have more hard-core enemies than we did before that invasion. But they are not in one place. They are not a state. They are not even of one ideology. What unites them is a growing hatred of America and a deadly commitment to do violence to Americans and their allies.

When one steps back from all the heated rhetoric about this, there is a serious disconnect. The “War on Terror” is a decidedly different war than we have ever fought, but, ironically, it is one in which the United States uses the traditional resources it has historically used to fight bloody, conventional wars with nation-states. We have an army of 138,000 on the ground in Iraq with the most sophisticated killing equipment on the face of the Earth. Traditional war machinery against a non-traditional enemy in a new kind of war?

Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

Arguably, the most important weapon in this kind of “war” is intelligence. By all accounts, Republican and Democrat, we are in very bad shape in that regard. The head of the CIA has resigned. The CIA operation on the ground has dwindled to dangerously low levels. Absent reliable intelligence, we blunder repeatedly on the world stage, notably on the matter of weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq-al-Qaida conspiracy, but also daily in Iraq we are surprised by terrorists’ actions because we lack credible information.

In all of this, we invoke the language of “war,” find a nation-state to attack that did not represent a direct threat to the U.S., role out the cumbersome and costly machinery of traditional warfare and fail miserably in reducing the terrorist threat to Americans around the globe.

Go figure! We need to get smart. We need to be more imaginative. We must address the terrorist threat and rabid anti-Americanism under a much broader and more multifaceted concept that the traditional understanding of what we mean when we use the language of war.

Is it too much to ask the leadership of this country, Democrat and Republican, to jettison the rubric of war for a more inclusive and creative approach to the very real threat of terrorism?

There are multiple dangers to invoking the traditional notion of war in this circumstance. Not only does it lead to the wrong targets internationally, it has profoundly significant, and I would argue, adverse results domestically.

The Patriot Act (what a title!) was hastily crafted by John Ashcroft’s Justice Department and passed by an emotional and frightened Congress. It significantly compromises our liberties. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle admit that and wish they could have their votes back. Now they are restrained in their efforts to improve it by the patriotic war rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration.

The war frame of mind also influences our politics. There is the implication, after all, that we cannot abandon a wartime president in the middle of a crisis.

There are many foreign policy issues facing this country and the globe that are all side-tracked by the almost exclusive focus that comes with war. Those issues, such as nuclear proliferation, relations with China, etc., are on a back burner and represent a significant loss for us all.

There are many consequences that flow from the invocation of the rhetoric of war.

The concept of war, whether we like it or not, releases the normal inhibitors of brutality, which bring some degree of civility to our relationship with the world. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are stark witness to this. Secretary Rumsfeld’s short-lived memo authorizing aggressive interrogation bordering on torture was both unseemly and un-American. But this is war, so we can convince ourselves that it is necessary.

We should recognize that the moniker of war constrains our creativity, saps our energy and resources, and pushes us in unproductive directions. We need a better, more refined, and new understanding of what we are about in this new world, recognizing that hearts and minds are not ever really won over by the traditional mentality and machinery of war.

What does this have to do with Maine, you might ask? It has everything to do with Maine. Our young people are in harm’s way in a scenario which is fatally flawed. This is the time for Maine people to say that “staying the course” is a serious mistake.

Jim Carignan is a retired educator who lives in Harpswell. His e-mail address is [email protected].