WAR vs TERROR: A Man to Man Battle
Both the War and Terror sounds bad either of psychological or philosophical concern, either in ideology or in practicality.
It can look very nice if in battle field, the players will be our leaders; Modi vs Imran or Trump vs Erdogan and we Commons be spectators. Is it strange? Exactly not. Cause historical battles had fought by kings and monarchs mainly, should be appreciated, cause they never used people and became self as back benchmark.
Pull it out...
The world's leading fighting clubs- NATO, SEATO, ISI, etc are very confusing to understand and what actually these are interested about. Literally, the bosses of ISI are sitting somewhere else in world and their camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan and mostly in Asia. In its philosophical and psychological concerns, if ISI is too strong, why is not their any political entity so far, perhaps puppets of their overlords, so that still mid-East has dominated by someone else. What are these world armies actually waiting of? Their producers knows well and we commons are always having a little information even we never try to understand about.
In its economic ideology, the war is called biggest business, selling arms and buying deaths instead and battle field its biggest market.
In its continental concern, India hails Pakistan as terrorist nation whereas India is terror active via ideologies of Pakistan.
Overall, the battle is being played via Man vs Man only.