Lead a war

Yes.

Thank you. And what about "wage a war" vs "lead a war"? Which would fit better in this context? Is "lead a war" uncommon, because my dictionary only lists "wage a war" and "fight a war"?

I doubt that George W. fought or waged the war himself. He made the decisions on tactics, resources, and strategy, and gained public support for financing it.. So it can be said that he led the war on terror.

I don't understand the difference between leading a war and waging a war. Isn't it the same? I can see that a politician is not "fighting" a war because he is not physically involved in it, but what about "waging"?

Another question about "to wage", in the dictionary the explanation is "to carry on". But why does it say "carry on"? That sounds like it can only apply to a war which has alre

geoyoI don't understand the difference between leading a war and waging a war. Isn't it the same?

No. Waging war means just to be involved in war, and to remain involved (to the end.) It is the progress of war.

War has a beginning:
Congress has the power to declare war on another nation.

It has a progress:
One nation can wage war on

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, it was of large use. So "leading a war" cannot mean "being involved in a war" or "being in the state of war"? Can one nation "lead a war" on another nation? Or is "to lead", in this context, reserved for a person, an actual leader? And again, can you use both "wage war on" and "wage war against" a nation?

geoyoAnd again, can you use both "wage war on" and "wage war against" a nation?

Yes.

geoyoSo "leading a war" cannot mean "being involved in a war"

I think that a leader, such as a general, is certainly involved in the war. He or she is not shooting a gun, driving a tank, or flying a war plane, but they are certainly planning