We are not at war with the tactic—however much we hate it and denounce it—any more than we are at "war" with drive-by shootings. There really is a tangible enemy out there, and it should be clearly identified, but for political reasons, the actual enemy goes unnamed, and the broad, scary word "terrorism" is substituted for propaganda purposes.
But at the Guardian, writer Tim Stanley says the attacks in Manchester and London are clear examples that the state is failing in its duty to prevent terrorism. He says Britons may have to sacrifice, but terror can be contained and defeated—just look at Northern Ireland.
The Troubles ended not because, as Jeremy Corbyn suggests, we sat down to tea with the IRA but because the British state suppressed it....No one wants to go through that again. But you don’t fight a war without the expectation that your way of life will change. If we want to win, it must.
It's tempting to think that a war against terrorism can be won by killing all the terrorists. In the real world, this naive plan doesn't work....The "weapon" we need is the trust and cooperation of the general population of the country where the terrorists are based.