The problem is that most "wars" the US has been involved in across the recent decades weren't conventional wars, even when the US was treating them as if they were.
The ongoing "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan (which miraculously have been "ended" unilaterally by the US many times over) aren't wars. They're garrisons.
Even ISIS (ISIL?) isn't a conventional enemy, despite having tanks. These aren't nation states and those aren't, for the most part, soldiers.
The reason the "War on Terror" is still treated as a war is that there is no reason not to. The article explains that quite nicely.
The ongoing "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan (which miraculously have been "ended" unilaterally by the US many times over) aren't wars. They're garrisons.
Even ISIS (ISIL?) isn't a conventional enemy, despite having tanks. These aren't nation states and those aren't, for the most part, soldiers.
The reason the "War on Terror" is still treated as a war is that there is no reason not to. The article explains that quite nicely.