Washington ? The United States is not at war, and continuing to say that we are makes the statement look politically motivated. We have previously written that war is a legal term, conferring certain rights and duties upon the combatants. But terrorists are not combatants. They are murderers who target civilians. They do not wear uniforms because they do not represent a nation, nor do they foster any hope of nationhood. Therefore, they are not protected by the Geneva Convention’s rules of war.

Terrorism is an act, not an entity. The conservative magazine “National Review” declared, “A war on terrorism, literally speaking, would be like a war on bombing.” Following Sept. 11, Interpol the international police organization issued a resolution that stated in part that “the Organization and each of its Members endorsing the present resolution will collaborate without reservation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in identifying every individual who assisted in committing these acts and bringing those who were responsible for them to justice.” The operative words are “law,” “individual,” “acts” and “justice.” These are crime-fighting words, not war-making words.

The Korean War was called a police action, but that was a real war. Conversely, the “war on terrorism” is a police action. And to wage it, police, quasi-police and military forces worldwide have joined the hunt not the battle and not the war. From Grenada to Somalia, almost every administration has committed U.S. forces in military operations that did not constitute wars, even though brave Americans lost their lives. So why, then, do we persist in calling this a war?

The most cynical reason is the wag-the-dog theory. Respected journalist David Broder said President George W. Bush’s popularity emanated from the events of Sept. 11 and the nation’s current state of war. But we cannot believe that the president would beat the war drums for crass political gain.

Perhaps the better explanation lies in the misuse of the language. After all, the war on drugs is not a war. But everyone understands this. So no one says the United States has been in a state of war over drugs for the last two decades. The same is true of the war on poverty and the war on crime. No one discussing these “wars” ever says, “America is at war.” The difference is that people routinely reference the “war on terrorism” by stating as fact that “America is at war.”

Did the loose use of the language about the wars on drugs, poverty and crime lead to this? Or did the language lead to this and politics simply perpetuate it?

Presidents Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Bush Sr. were wartime presidents. President Bush is not at least not yet.

At some point, the terminology must change or it will backfire on the current administration. This will happen if two years from now, when the president is running for re-election, he is still claiming the nation is at war, when all evidence indicates it is not.

The criminals may kill more of us before it is over, but they are not warriors any more than were the two snipers who indiscriminately killed people from Washington state to Washington, D.C.

Prediction: In the end, the effort to bring terrorists to justice is going to involve more police and quasi-police activities than military operations. These will include FBI, CIA, Interpol and police agencies around the world.