The international war against terrorism cannot be won.

“What?” you ask.

In case you didn’t get that the first time, I’ll say it again.

The international war against terrorism cannot be won.

In terms of traditional warfare, a conflict can be seen as victorious or complete when all or most of its objectives are met. The objectives of a traditional war generally focus around neutralizing or at least pacifying a threat or conquering a territory.

The war against terrorism attempts to neutralize a threat, but that is where the differences between this war and almost every other previous war end.

The only other war fought under such conditions is the war on drugs. The war on drugs is being fought against a decentralized and well-financed opponent, but look where that has gotten us. The war on terrorism has many similarities to the war on drugs.

Of course, terrorists pose a more significant threat to the people of the world than drug smugglers because the people affected by terrorists don’t choose to be inflicted.

This is where you ask: What about the Northern Alliance’s gains against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Aren’t the people we want to see win the war winning it right now?

No.

They merely are winning a single, small battle in this war. The commitment of the U.S. and its allies to wipe terrorism off the face of the earth simply does not center on Afghanistan. Although this battle appears to have been a positive step, it will not necessarily represent a victorious war.

Terrorism as a means of activism has been used as a means for oppressed and impoverished people to gain the world’s attention for long periods of time, and actually may increase as the U.S. struts its power across the globe.

The Irish Republican Army has used terrorism as a means of gaining the world’s attention for decades. It appears as though the war on terrorism has them spooked, though. Not long after the U.S. pledged to track down terrorists across the globe, the IRA began disarming and, in exchange, the British began dismantling surveillance posts along the Irish border.

The disarmament also is a gain for the war on terrorism and a bloodless battle that reduces the risks of terrorism in the world. It is likely that statements made by many countries to fight terrorism, and military action to back up those threats, will lead to a new understanding in Europe.

Although the war against terror seems to be making progress by leaps and bounds, it is about to take a serious and dangerous turn. The Washington Post reported that Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton, speaking at a biological weapons conference in Geneva Monday, said the existence of a germ warfare program in Iraq is “beyond dispute” and added that the United States strongly suspects North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and Sudan of pursuing such weapons.

This is the beginning of the expansion of the war on terrorism. Let the public relations campaign begin.

If the U.S. actually does choose to go after terrorists and the governments that harbor them, it would be very easy for the people, who in all of the aforementioned countries except North Korea are predominantly Muslim, to see the military actions as directed at Muslims and countries that support the Muslim faith. This could become very messy, indeed.

However, even the governments that harbor terrorists can be defeated. The reason the war is not winnable is similar to the war on drugs — there is no way to claim victory. The war will rage on with no end in sight, and terror will continue to be a threat no matter how many terrorist cells are defeated. Terrorism is a way for the under-represented and disgruntled people of the world to be heard, and they will continue their attempts to be heard.

Attacking Muslim countries that are believed to be harboring terrorist organizations will likely only inflame the problems that caused the attacks in the first place.