War on Terrorism: You're either with us, or you're with the noun

If you haven't already figured it out, we won't and can't win the "War on Terrorism", any more than we can win the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". These things are nouns, not people or governments or nations or any other tangible object with which a war can be waged. Sure, we can kill terrorists like we did in Afghanistan just like we can imprison people for smoking pot. But even if we killed every single terrorist in the entire world, we still would not win the War on Terrorism because there will always be more minds with which to take up the ideology again.

Have you ever thought about that phrase, "War on Terrorism?" Or ever looked up terrorism in the dictionary? If you did, you'd find this:

ter·ror·ism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now, think about George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and read that definition again. Whatever your personal feelings on the war, you can't tell me it doesn't meet that definition. So, what are we to do? We can't kill all the terrorists now unless we kill ourselves? The "War" should've been titled something like the struggle against terrorism. But of course, it wasn't because George W. Bush is a self-described "War President" and wanted a war so that he could assume war power for himself. And since the War on Terrorism can never be won, it goes on forever. Permanent wartime power. And under Bush's legal "theory", that means the power to do whatever he pleases regardless of law.