If, on the other hand, the enemy is defined in abstract terms such that he could be anyone and everywhere, then the billions in spending and expansion of federal power can be sold to the voters as necessary and proper.
The War on Terror and, more specifically, the Department of Homeland Security, will move very quickly beyond Islamic militants to the mission originally intended by the Clinton/Gore administration (which actually drafted the plans now being implemented by the Bush administration): the apprehension of domestic anti-government activists.
No argument there (I said as much). Its name (or rather, the name everyone seems to be calling it - do wars have "official names"?) is precisely what makes it more palatable to the average Joe Americans, and that's why it was chosen, rather than, say, "War Of Holy Vengeance to Exterminate Islam".
The War on Terror and, more specifically, the Department of Homeland Security, will move very quickly beyond Islamic militants to the mission originally intended by the Clinton/Gore administration (which actually drafted the plans now being implemented by the Bush administration): the apprehension of domestic anti-government activists.
We'll see. If that happens, it will be wrong, of course. I'm not crazy about the "Department of Homeland Security" in the first place, and never said I was - but of course you've changed the subject anyway (from your original comment claiming you can't fight wars against abstract nouns....).
Best,