Who cares? It's just gone.
On Fox News Sunday this weekend, Chris Wallace pressed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, on why the new administration no longer uses the phrase "war on terror."
Wallace: . . . a lot of people have noticed that both the president and top advisors very seldom talk about the "war on terror." Why is that? From your conversations with him, does he see our fight against Islamic radicals differently than President Bush did?
Mullen: It's very clear in my engagement with him that he is very focused on the terrorist extremist threat. And my guidance is to continue to pursue that in every possible way.
Wallace: Do you have any explanation as to why he doesn't talk about the "war on terror"?
Mullen: No I don't. I mean, I don't. I just told you, what he's told me to do is focus very specifically on this threat, lead by Al Qaeda. But certainly it's a top priority to focus on terrorism and terrorists and the extremists that are out there who would do us harm.
Wallace: Last question: As the nation's top military man, do you believe that you are still leading a "war" against terrorism.
Mullen: There are an awful lot of elements of terrorists and terrorism which threaten us, and we continue to very clearly pursue them. And we will until they're no longer a threat.
Government officials can use elements of military power against terrorism selectively, appropriately, and in a balanced way if they avoid the "war on terror" metaphor.
Declining to use the needlessly frightening phrase, Admiral Mullen conveys the authority, competence, and confidence that will lead our country back from self-defeating overreaction, which is the terrorism strategy doing its work.
It's fascinating to see this essential rhetorical shift. It's benefits might be revelation to some. When will they ever learn?
A rich trove of strategic counterterrorism thinking was on display at our conference on the subject in January.