The first time we tried to issue a declaration of war against a militant group in this century, we ended up in Afghanistan.
We're still there, by the way.
Then we invaded Iraq and took out some of their national military, received the military's surrender, and started fighting civilian militant insurgents.
We're still there as well.
In neither case was there apparently a clear-cut goal in mind, and once we started fighting civilians it was like we had put our troops on a treadmill.
A treadmill that they can only fall off of, in body bags or wheelchairs or PTSD pillbottles.
A treadmill they're still on, and one we're not giving them much hope of escaping at the moment.
Our statutes for declaring war were designed with NATIONS in mind, that two or more NATIONS would go to war and fight until one or more was annihilated or conquered, or voluntarily surrendered and its leaders or ambassador brought in to sign a ceasefire or peace treaty.
The NATO treaty was similarly designed, and since the end of the Cold War it has become increasingly obsolete.
What too few people who cry out for militarily-inflicted vengeance realize is that anyone can choose to become a terrorist at any time.
Even if we followed the proposition vehemently supported by too many on TOL and killed every practicing or identifying Muslim on Earth, we could have twice the number of terrorists within two weeks of that atrocity being committed as we do now.
And we likely would, given that people tend to turn to terrorism as a way to fight back against a foreign power which possesses a superior organized military that it uses to inflict death or suffering.
Killing terrorists or advocating a military response to terrorist attacks does nothing if we continue to allow (and in the case of the United States, encourage and applaud) the economic strangulation and military bludgeoning which leads to more people becoming terrorists.