You make a strong point Bill. I need to think more about that.

What does concern me is that by employing the word war the politicians are using cheap rhetorical flourishes that they know in their hearts they cannot deliver on - to fight a war sounds very grand and so much more reassuring than the muddled struggle required to combat terrorism, but in a war you need an identifiable enemy and clear goals. Despite Bush's rhetoric there is zero chance of the USA declaring war on 5 Arab states anytime this side of hell freezing over.

Just look at all the empty rhetoric of the past - do you remember "He can run, but he cannot hide!" - that demon is still in power, because it suited US interests to leave him there in the long run. Do you remember all the stuff about bombing Baghdad back into the dark ages? Well, again when push came to shove Saddam was left in power because it suited US interests.

I just think those of us who care about language have a duty to exercise scrupulous care at times like this. Otherwise the consequences tend to make victims of the least powerful people around the globe.