Source/Credit: The Malta Independent 05 August, 2011:

Above all, the term was an effort to communicate to Americans, accustomed to waging war with speed and decisiveness (and insistent on it since Vietnam), the long-term sacrifice and commitment needed to win a war of survival. Its proponents also understood that the war would not be limited to weapons, but would need to be a sustained effort, involving, as they put it, the “whole of government,” with civilian agencies marshaled behind military – or paramilitary – objectives.

Daunting as the effort would be, its advocates assumed a sustainable political consensus to support it. After all, the United States had been attacked.

But what if there is no money to offer? What if Americans, tired of the budget cuts in their neighbourhood, refuse to support funds even for “the long war”? At that point, senior US officials might well arrive in a country, offer advice, and find that nobody is bothering to listen.

Read full article: