This whole idea of "America declares war on Fire" is basically a symbolism to the War on Terror, simply because the Americans are fighting a war in which they can't possibly win.
wrong. we can win. it just depends on the definition of winning. this may seem like an oblique argument and word-parsing, but it is entirely relevant, and actually at the very core of the debate on the gwot. in warfare, it not a widely or publicly known, but an absolute fact taught directly or indirectly in all military academies and rotc schools, that there is no such thing as "winning" in terms of checkers or monopoly. there is not a war in history that has been "won" in those terms. there are only various shades of not losing, when all the short and long-term costs are added up. in fact, sometimes the "losers" are in fact the "winners", through the eyes of history. unfortunately or not, that filter is not how war planning nor battle decisions are typically made.
john kerry once said he would like to see terrorism reduced to a level of "nuisance". while i will not reveal my feelings for the man, i will point out that he was ridiculed for that statement. yet countless military expert think-tanks staffed with active and retired generals of all stars, cols, and ex-cia, fbi, and nsa agents of various political persuasions have said the exact same thing, often in publicly published papers, just in alot more words. not a single goddamned civilian i have ever met (or asked) has read a single one.
so make not mistake, in that context, america *can* "win" against terrorism. and that will likely be the best we'll ever achieve - whether against islamic extremism, or whatever the next most significant threat comes after that goes out of fashion (and it will). whether or not americans and the rest of the world are willing to stomach the consequences of such a "victories" (some would argue the emergence of a global police/militarized state though i don't necessarily agree), is another question.
another way to "win" is to nuke the entire middle east to glass and ash. at one time that fantasy was vaguely appealing to me though i wouldn't have admitted it because, well, millions of innocent people would die as a direct outcome alone. yet it seems that remains a fantasy for a significant number of americans and other nationalities. either way, as a result of such an action, there would be pesky consequences both immediate and long-term (radioactive fallout wouldn't be as bad as many think, with the fusion reaction secondaries of modern warheads), annoying moral issues, and the cold hard fact that any apparent win is actually not, since no war is ever actually won. (don't mistake this acknowledgment of a global intellectual point of view, with a retrospective opinion on my own service and sacrifice.)
"terrorism" is a method of irregular warfare, as old as warfare itself. as long as any relatively homogeneous group (based on race, class, ideology, and/or other factors) finds itself in opposition to another homogeneous group, while also being relatively politically impotent and militarily outclassed, it will resort to asymmetrical warfare - aka guerrilla, terrorism, etc., if and when it decides violent conflict is the only solution. (which is often - which is why purposely branding and excluding potential extremist groups from the political process are the historically and continually repeated worst courses of action). technically speaking, the asymmetrical warfare that the continental army engaged in during the early days of the american revolution, could be called "terrorism" if you really wanted to - from the point of view of the british. from our point of view, it was justified asymmetrical warfare.
always remember. the enemy is always evil. no matter which side you're on. otherwise, how could you kill them? leaders make war, not their people.
none of this is an argument for moral relativism though, even though these same points are often used as such. "one man's terrorist" is *not* necessarily "another man's freedom fighter". but these understandings are critical to waging an effective war. as robert s. macnamera once said, in order to defeat the enemy, you must empathize with him. not sympathize, empathize. understand his motives. walk a mile in his shoes. and use that understanding for strategic and tactical advantage. the act of demonizing the enemy *prevents* such empathizing, clouds the mind, and is a barrier to objectives large and small. it is one reason (out of many) the axis lost and the allies won. (winning and losing being relative terms mind you.)