Hey, I've missed one of those presidential references to the struggle formerly known as 'the war on terror' - and, in fact, sometimes still known as 'the war on terror'. Because that is what the prez sez. Speaking to state department employees just over a week ago, he says 'war on terror'. Here:
We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: the war on terror, sectarian division, and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.
This brings the FKATWOT count to 7, since as FKATWOT adjudicator I rule that the struggle formerly known as 'the war on terror' can remain what it is even if it is sometimes still known as 'the war on terror' - on the simple grounds that it was formerly known as 'the war on terror' whatever we now choose to call it. The prez evidently likes to mix things up a bit, to vary his usage, and why not?
I owe the discovery of this particular presidential reference to a CiF blogger who proves yet once more that you can expel a lot of hot air in trying to dream up reasons why 'the war on terror' is a bad, bad phrase:
[D]efining our fight against al-Qaida and its like-minded network of jihadists as a war on terror gives legitimacy to a fanatical fringe in political Islam...
For that's what you do when you declare war on something: you give legitimacy to it. War on germs? Legitimizes germs. War on crime? Oh, legitimizes, legitimizes - it almost brings those darn criminals within the law. Remember the war against fascism? That really put Hitler and Mussolini on the map of lovable legitimate folk.