Op-ed pieces in the Washington Post--ironically, the company town paper--have long pointed out the linguistic issue with the phrase "war on terror." A war must have an enemy whom one can attack.
The War on Poverty, declared by President Johnson, was bad enough, but at least its apologists could and did stick their noses in the air and claim metaphorical status, in that long-lost era when intellectualism was popular and respected in America. The engines of "war" were seeking out and attacking the causes of poverty, including lack of education.
Even the War on Drugs, which I suppose to my embarrassment was launched by my fellow Californian President Reagan, has some claim to the name. Federal agents are arresting people who provide drugs and physically destroying the drugs themselves. Unfortunately the wisdom to understand the futility of outlawing a popular product, as well as the education in the economic principles that invariably generate a black market, are beyond them. But the worst we can call them is
stupid rather than the ultimate insult on this forum: misusers of the language.
But there is no forgiving the linguistic sins of The Warriors on Terror. They have studiously avoided identifying its causes, much less attacking them. The Central Asia Institute in Bozeman, Montana, with its pathetic seven-figure budget, has done a better job of it. (Shameless plug: our entire charity budget goes to Greg Mortenson's organization.
http://www.ikat.org/) They argue that one of the primary reasons the terrorist mentality goes unchecked in any region is the inferior status of its women, traditionally a force for the advancement rather than destruction of civilization. And they are attacking that by building schools throughout the Middle East that come with only one condition: They must be all-girl or coeducational.
