How may we define "going to war"?

Yesterday Doug Sanders asked on twitter if Sending a plane in support of a multilateral NATO mission counts as "going to war?"

Does sending one military transport plane to a multilateral NATO mission count as "going to war?" (Genuine question)
— Doug Saunders (@DougSaunders) January 15, 2013

Mr. Sanders left open what "going to war" means; allowing that the meaning be defined in the reply. I think Canada is "going to war" in Mali. Going to War has two components, a physical commitment and an political commitment. The physical pertaining to the commitment of persons and material. The political part being an awareness of the war by the leadership and citizen and its impact on them.

The minimum threshold of war making is at the political level in the providing of  approval and moral support to the nation(s) involved. If a country does not give it's approval, it maybe said they not involved; therefore any nation that does approve has committed to the proposition of war.

The maximum level of "going to war' is the full application of all physical assets; persona and material  for an indefinite period of time; the full awareness of leadership and citizen of the war.

Once a nation commits to war, nature of that commitment must be further defined. Approval and moral support being the lowest level of going to war is exemplified by the " Coalition of the Willing" which included nations that gave there moral and political support but varying degrees of material support.

The minimum threshold of physical support is providing planning support. Canada has committed to logistical support. Canada by offering a transport plane has breached the threshold level of both the physical and political support required for it to be said we "are going to war".

At this level of commitment our personnel and material face the absolute minimum of risk. The risk is of the general sort faced by being in a combat zone or areas where combat is possible. Also by taking France's and Mali's side against the rebels we have, however remotely become a target of the those rebels.

I recognize that there are levels of "going to war". Canada occupies near the bottom of that threshold. France is at the top; having committed fully to the action in Mali; physically and politically and maybe more properly approach the proposition  more commonly thought of as "going to war".

This opinion is offered on how we might define the phrase "going to war" and apply it to Canada's action a general sense; not on whether Canada's involvement is good or bad.

Update 29/01/2013

Canadian special forces are now in Mali to protect assets. This increases our commitment a little further. I do not expect Canada to send combat troops; but any of our soldiers in a combat zone are at risk. Harper is providing the minimum of support in order to maintain at a minimum the ability to speak on or  influence affairs in Mali.