If words matter, are we well served by calling it a “War against Terror?” As many have pointed out, “terror” is a tactic, not an ideology or an actual enemy. Still I think that there is a bigger problem with calling our current global struggle a “war” and I’m going to argue that it would be better to talk and think about it as a “Struggle for Civilization.”

Think about other campaigns we have called wars: “The War on Poverty”, “The War on Drugs” even “The War to End All Wars.” These haven’t been very successful on the whole. Think about “The Cold War.” Some would say that we “won” that one, but not without creating some longer term problems in the process.

When you get a nation into the mindset of being in a war, several things come into play:

To be at “War” you need to have something to destroy – some tangible enemy some place. Our very real enemies today could be anywhere – in the suburbs of England or Detroit or remote parts of Pakistan, but we are fighting the “war” in the deserts of Iraq.

In times of “War”, dissent becomes “non-patriotic” – we have gotten into a very sticky situation in Iraq and need to work together to figure out how to proceed, but the partisans can’t resist using our problems as ways to bash each other.

In the execution of a “War” principles get compromised. When you think “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” you get democracies doing the things we did in the Cold War – cozying up to dictators (Saddam…) or funneling money and arms to groups that don’t share any of your ultimate aims (Bin Laden…). The same sort of thing is happening now.

When at “War”, ideals fall by the wayside. Centuries of development of ideas about justice and international law can be swept aside because of the extraordinary situation.

Until the “War” is finished, constructive steps are postponed. Wars that actually end can at least have their “Marshal Plan,” but this one may not end for a very long time if at all.

So if the mindset driven by the language of a “War against Terror” favors destructive measures, over-simplifications, the suppression of dissent, compromised values, questionable allies and postponement of positive activities, is there an alternative? Is war our only option?

“But,” you may argue, “this isn’t a war because we asked for it – this whole thing is driven by a very real enemy that absolutely considers itself at war with the nations and societies of the Western world.” I would agree entirely with the severity of the threat. What we are dealing with today is a warped Jihad that defines every infidel and even most Muslims as enemies deserving death. It is arguably one of the most nihilistic ideologies in history and has the perverse power to attract followers willing both to die and to do unspeakable things to their fellow man in the process. It also has the unsettling ability to gain recruits not only from Islamic states but from seemingly “integrated” members of the Muslim Diaspora. Even more disturbing, it has the power to turn even recent converts who grew up in our culture.

It is not surprising that people considering this threat would ask, “what response could there be that isn’t a war?”

There is no doubt that violence will be a major part of the landscape for some time. If we think of ourselves as being in a crucial “struggle” that will sometimes be our only option. But a “struggle” can be broader – it can be to build something. There is a lyric in the musical, “RENT” that says, “the opposite of war isn’t peace, its creation.” There is some truth to that.

To highlight what we are “struggling for” consider living in Afghanistan under the Taliban because that is the vision of our enemies. Our various world civilizations (only one of which is the “West” – See Samuel Huntington’s excellent book The “Clash of Civilizations”) are far from perfect as they continue to progress unevenly. Still, they have attributes worth struggling to maintain and improve. We are all better off to the extent that people around the world have the freedom to believe and express their ideas and faith.

When the sexes and races are treated equitably our societies flourish.

When there are opportunities for education and economic success, more and more people can be freed from ignorance and want.

When science and other forms of learning are enabled the human condition can be improved.

When the arts are valued, and when travel and communication are enabled, our lives are enriched.

When forms of government spread power more broadly, when national sovereignties are respected and when the environment is cherished, humanity can thrive.

These are the sort of things about our civilizations for which we are struggling because they would not exist if our enemies had it their way.The radical Islamist critique of civilization sees only the bad things about our cultures. Some of those issues of morality are real, but the positive trends described above are hard-won accomplishments of centuries of “civilizing” that we want to keep and build upon.I

don’t believe that radical Islamists can ever prevail as such, but if we back-track on good aspects of our civilization because of living in a "War" mindset, we hand them a kind of victory that they don’t deserve. If we really believe that our ideals are worth fighting for then we need to continue to operate by them even as we struggle.

Words can matter if they to guide our mindset and actions.