I oppose the term war like it is a pox upon us. The
"War on Poverty" "War on Crime", J. Edgar Hoover's euphemism for his war on individuals, seemed to be the starting point. Then we had "War on Poverty" (instead of a "War in Vietnam"), "War on Drugs," "War on Gangs" (ignoring the previous "Gang Warfare" concept), "War on Cancer," ad nauseum.
Those wars, their earlier connection to a real war, and the empetus to concentrate power in single individuals with technocratic zeal gave us the continued use of the term: czar.
During the latter stages of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to run the War Industries Board. This position was sometimes dubbed the "industry czar".I know that the term czar is out of vogue, but it was an apt term for a petite dictator charged with enforcing draconian statutes and armed with willing bureaucrats.
- Wikipedia article, "Czar (political term)"
So why would I stoop to suggesting another war? Well, if anything is worth winning, then it is freedom. If we have to call the struggle a war to get a little attention, then so be it. And quite frankly, all those wars declared for supposed good were really wars on people violating no true laws or on individuals in the way of progression.
A War on Tyranny, even if it is only rhetorical, is a just war of the utmost moral good and importance. And to state the struggle in positive terms, and to highlight its perpetual status: Assiduus Bellum Pro Libertas.