What is the "War on Terror"

Yesterday, as I was reading a comment on the post following Bin Laden's death, my friend who is the author of that comment posited that the "War on Terror" is really just a pairing of a few words to justify our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to secure more oil for our country.   First I would like to talk about the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan before getting into the "War on Terror".  The main reason we went to Afghanistan was not to secure oil for our country, it was to rout Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden.  It was a direct result of 9/11, following within a few weeks of the tragic event and ultimately did we find Bin Laden there?  No, but by starting in Afghanistan, we eventually followed his tracks to Pakistan where we were able to take him out.  So to say that Afghanistan lies on the same plane as Iraq is to take away from the fact that it had anything to do with Bin Laden and his removal which the American people are lauding today.  Iraq on the other hand, as much as it was paired with Afghanistan in the "War on Terror" was invaded under false pretenses, the so-called "weapons of mass destruction", and had everything to do with oil.  I did not feel we needed to invade Iraq or that we needed to stay as long as we did.  However, Iraq and Afghanistan, with regards to harboring Al Qaeda can not and should not be held at the same level. 

Now, perhaps I started backwards in addressing the issue here, but unless we agree that the "War on Terror" is a tangible fight, not a fictional pairing of words to justify other actions, then the war in Afghanistan means nothing.  Terror is, as my friend put it, a state of mind.  So how then can there be a war on terror when war is tangible and terror is intangible.  As I see it, the intangible idea of terror is brought to fruition through tangible, overt acts on the parts of certain individuals with the express intent on promulgating terror in the minds of individuals.  The attacks of 9/11 were not attacks of the mind, but rather overt physical acts taken by a group of individuals with the express purpose of instilling terror in the minds of people, to cause them to look twice over their shoulder or the scrutinize the slightest oddity a little more closely.  Without tangible acts taken to instill terror, terror does not exist.  Terror does not simply grow on its own with simply words and threats (although in some people it may, in general it does not), it needs something physical to spark it to life.   The "War on Terror" then is a war against those individuals that incite terror in the minds of others, expressly, a large population such as an entire country.  Without acting against those individuals, either through gaining intel and preventing attacks that instill terror or overtly invading a country to seek out the leader of a group that's whole purpose is to bring "state of terror" into people's minds, then these individuals would have free reign to "terrorize" anyone they wished. 

The "War on Terror" is a broad term that many have used improperly and for the wrong reasons.  Afghanistan is partly a "war on terror", the invasion of a country to try and rout a group of individuals and prevent them from terrorizing in the future.  The broader "war on terror" as I see it is more a low-key, intelligence gathering effort paired with increase security to prevent terrorist attacks and thus prevent terror as a state of mind from entering into the social consciousness of a population.  My friend said that 9/11 forever changed us as a population and he is absolutely correct.  Never will we value freedom the same way again and never will security or intel gathering efforts be the same either.  These actions taken, most unseen by the public, are a direct effort to try and regain a sense of security.  This intelligence war, if you will, as prevented some attacks from occuring and will probably do so in the future.  It is not a war in the sense of man vs. man on a battlfield seeking to kill one another, but rather a prevention war in which we seek to gain intelligence about future actions that may take place.  So I believe that my friend was correct in saying that terror is indeed a state of mind, but without actions taken against individuals who foment that terror, terror would gain greater traction and come to rule our lives. 

Terror is and always will be subject to each individuals interpretation of events and how they wish to let that said terror affect them.  Some will move on, some will hold on to that terror and let it control their lives, others will simply let it fester under the surface, waiting for it to be brought to the forefront by some news event or action.  Allowing terror to enter into our minds is allowing the terrorists to win a certain victory in their war to instill terror.   That does not mean we should not learn from what they did and try and adjust things for the future, but by adjusting security measures, we can at least regain some sense of security and freedom.   I also agree with my friend when he said that too few are the times when we come together across racial, religious, political, ethical, and moral divides in unity to celebrate an event.  In my mind, we must search to do this for the right reasons in life, not simply over the death of an individual.  We came together, albeit it not as completely, when miners were saved from a collapsed mine.  In a sense, it is sad that unity only seems to come following a tragic event.  But alas, that is where we are headed, looking for the tragedy to unite us and bring us together instead of coming together under normal circumstances to celebrate freedom.  Look again for that positive event that we can all come together under whether it be a baseball game, or even just the Fourth of July.  Lets celebrate life instead of death.