Our Guv-ments have had a history of declaring Wars “on” this or that.  They seem to go on for decades and they also seem to create more of what the war is indeed on.  In the common speech I think we have taken it for granted that the use of the word “on” was to indicate that the war was focused against an assumed evil to bring about its destruction.  But the use of “on” in that particular sense is only one of the many other uses and does not seem congruent with the patterns and outcomes of these mind games.  Upon consideration of the processes and outcomes of these “wars” I now understand that the intent and goals of them were indeed “on.”  And they have been most effectively waged.  Poverty, Drugs, Terror all have been the means, the support, the fuel, not the focus of these wars.  If one would discern who they were against attend to the outcomes, those who profited, and those negatively impacted.  I will paste below a fairly exhaustive list of how the word “on” is used.  Consider these so called wars in light of what is to follow.  Just on the face of it is “on” being used as a preposition or adverb?  That makes a difference.  The primary definitions tend toward “on” indicating a supportive role.  It is not until the fifth definition that there is some indication of it being used in the sense of aim or focus.  To say we are focusing on poverty or terror to eradicate it is very different from saying that we are going to have a war and it will ride on and be supported by drugs or poverty or terror.  Just a thought.