Am I the only one who’s confused by all the various usages of the word War? According to Bush, we are at war, but we have not declared war.

According to dictionary.com, war is:

• the waging of armed conflict against an enemy.
• a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration, during which the international rules of war apply.
• a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious; i.e. the war on drugs.

Now, as I understand it, in order for the U.S. to officially declare war, Bush has to ask Congress to do so, which has not happened. However, Bush and others have said “We are at war.”

In World War II, we were attacked by Japan, and we declared war on them, at which point we entered military conflict with them. This year, we were attacked by terrorists, and now we’re about to enter military conflict with them and the country harboring them.

So the point that I get lost is here: What’s the difference between military conflict with and without a legal declaration of war? Is the only reason we’re not declaring war because it wasn’t a country that attacked us? Does the lack of a legal document change a war into a military conflict?

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a little odd? Doesn’t it seem like we would want clear and precise vocabulary when we’re talking about something like war? Why is Bush saying we’re at war if we’re not?

Please note: I am talking about vocabulary here, not debating whether or not the U.S. is correct in taking military action.