Winning the War on Semantics

"Winning the war on terror." I don't know, I guess that that just sounds kind of odd to me. I mean, sure, I want to reduce as much as possible ALL forms of senseless violence/mayhem. But, so, too, I'm saying, I want to reduce the ill-effects of drunk driving, illicit drug use, sexual violence against women. I want the murder rate, especially, to go down. Cancer deaths, air-pollution, I want all of it to be eliminated/reduced as much as possible............................But, really, let's get sober here my friends. How, pray-tell, do you "win" a war on something that's as ill-defined as some douche-bag blowing himself up in a crowded place. I mean, sure, there are probably many things we CAN do to keep ourselves safe/safer - both from an offensive (intelligence sharing, covert operations, limited military action, supporting the moderate elements of Islam) and defensive (homeland security measures) perspective. But, really, are we ever going to totally eliminate (which I gather is what Mr. O'Reilly means by "win") terrorism from the face of the earth? Hardly, I'm thinking...............................Of course, the worst of all possible worlds is a policy....that doesn't just fail to contain terrorism but actually makes it worse. What we're frigging doing now, in other words; bludgeoning, sabre-rattling (axis of evil, love that one), occupation, the having of a large chunk of our military stuck in Arabia (forever, apparently), etc.. George W. Bush's policies, in other words. P.S. I fully recognize the dangers of WMD in the hands of terrorists and that, yes, everything needs to done to hopefully prevent that. All I'm saying is that here, too, let's not be stupid, O.K.?