Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington and at New York University's Center on Law and Security. His most recent book is "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader."



Peter Bergen says it's crucial to correctly frame the nature of a war before beginning it.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama and his foreign policy advisers and speechwriters are wrestling with one of the most important speeches of his presidency, his inaugural address.



One of their toughest conceptual challenges is how to describe and recast what the Bush administration has consistently termed the "war on terror."



The dean of military strategists, Carl von Clausewitz, explains the importance of this decision-making in his treatise "On War": "The first, the supreme, the most decisive act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish...the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature."



Clausewitz's excellent advice about the absolute necessity of properly defining the war upon which a nation is about to embark was ignored by Bush administration officials who instead declared an open-ended and ambiguous "war on terror" after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001.



Bush took the nation to war against a tactic, rather than a war against a specific enemy, which was obviously al Qaeda and anyone allied to it. When the United States went to war against the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt and his congressional supporters did not declare war against U-boats and kamikaze pilots, but on the Nazi state and Imperial Japan.



The war on terror, sometimes known as the "Global War on Terror" or by the clunky acronym GWOT, became the lens through which the Bush administration judged almost all of its foreign policy decisions. That proved to be dangerously counterproductive on several levels.



The GWOT framework propelled the Bush administration into its disastrous entanglement in Iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11 but was launched under the rubric of the war on terror and the erroneous claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.



The theory was that he might give such weapons to terrorists, including al Qaeda to whom he was supposedly allied, and that he therefore threatened American interests. None of this, of course, turned out to be true.



The Bush administration's approach to the war on terror collided badly with another of its doctrines, spreading democracy in the Middle East as a panacea to reduce radicalism.



It pushed for elections in the Palestinian territories in which, in early 2006, the more radical Hamas won a resounding victory, propelled to power on a wave of popular revulsion for the incompetence and corruption of the Fatah party that had dominated Palestinian politics since the 1960s.



Imprisoned by its war on terror framework, the Bush administration supported Israel in a disastrous war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Hezbollah is not only a terrorist group but is also part of the rickety Lebanese government and runs social welfare services across the country, yet for the Bush administration its involvement in terrorism was all that mattered.



As is now widely understood in Israel, the war against Hezbollah was a moral and tactical defeat for the Israeli military and government. Events in the current Israeli incursion in Gaza will determine whether history repeats itself.



Under the banner of the war on terror, the Bush administration also tied itself in conceptual knots conflating the threat from al Qaeda with Shiite groups like Hezbollah and the ayatollahs in Iran.



In 2006, for instance, President Bush claimed that "the Sunni and Shiite extremist represent different faces of the same threat." In reality, Sunni and Shiite extremists have been killing each other in large numbers for years in countries from Pakistan to Iraq. The groups have differing attitudes toward the United States, which Sunni extremists attacked in 1993 and again on 9/11, while Shiite militants have never done so.



So
Editor 's note : Peter Bergen is CNN 's national security analyst and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington and at New York University 's Center on Law and Security . His most recent book is " The Osama bin Laden I Know : An Oral History of al Qaeda 's Leader . " Peter Bergen says it 's crucial to correctly frame the nature of a war before beginning it . WASHINGTON ( CNN ) -- President - elect Barack Obama and his foreign policy advisers and speechwriters are wrestling with one of the most important speeches of his presidency , his inaugural address . One of their toughest conceptual challenges is how to describe and recast what the Bush administration has consistently termed the " war on terror . " The dean of military strategists , Carl von Clausewitz , explains the importance of this decision - making in his treatise " On War " : " The first , the supreme , the most decisive act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish ... the kind of war on which they are embarking ; neither mistaking it for , nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature . " Clausewitz 's excellent advice about the absolute necessity of properly defining the war upon which a nation is about to embark was ignored by Bush administration officials who instead declared an open - ended and ambiguous " war on terror " after the United States was attacked on September 11 , 2001 . Bush took the nation to war against a tactic , rather than a war against a specific enemy , which was obviously al Qaeda and anyone allied to it . When the United States went to war against the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II , President Franklin Roosevelt and his congressional supporters did not declare war against U - boats and kamikaze pilots , but on the Nazi state and Imperial Japan . The war on terror , sometimes known as the " Global War on Terror " or by the clunky acronym GWOT , became the lens through which the Bush administration judged almost all of its foreign policy decisions . That proved to be dangerously counterproductive on several levels . The GWOT framework propelled the Bush administration into its disastrous entanglement in Iraq . It had nothing to do with 9/11 but was launched under the rubric of the war on terror and the erroneous claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction . The theory was that he might give such weapons to terrorists , including al Qaeda to whom he was supposedly allied , and that he therefore threatened American interests . None of this , of course , turned out to be true . The Bush administration 's approach to the war on terror collided badly with another of its doctrines , spreading democracy in the Middle East as a panacea to reduce radicalism . It pushed for elections in the Palestinian territories in which , in early 2006 , the more radical Hamas won a resounding victory , propelled to power on a wave of popular revulsion for the incompetence and corruption of the Fatah party that had dominated Palestinian politics since the 1960s . Imprisoned by its war on terror framework , the Bush administration supported Israel in a disastrous war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 . Hezbollah is not only a terrorist group but is also part of the rickety Lebanese government and runs social welfare services across the country , yet for the Bush administration its involvement in terrorism was all that mattered . As is now widely understood in Israel , the war against Hezbollah was a moral and tactical defeat for the Israeli military and government . Events in the current Israeli incursion in Gaza will determine whether history repeats itself . Under the banner of the war on terror , the Bush administration also tied itself in conceptual knots conflating the threat from al Qaeda with Shiite groups like Hezbollah and the ayatollahs in Iran . In 2006 , for instance , President Bush claimed that " the Sunni and Shiite extremist represent different faces of the same threat . " In reality , Sunni and Shiite extremists have been killing each other in large numbers for years in countries from Pakistan to Iraq . The groups have differing attitudes toward the United States , which Sunni extremists attacked in 1993 and again on 9/11 , while Shiite militants have never done so . So
What does Bergen say the president went to war against?
What does Bergen say the president went to war against ?
a tactic,
a tactic,