Britain Quits Use of "War on Terror". Good.

It was always a bad phrase, not least because it obscures more than it reveals.

by Rod D. Martin
April 16, 2007

Britain's announcement today that it will cease using the term "War on Terror" could be taken as more weaseling by Euroweanies. (And yes, they even have those in the UK.)

But it shouldn't. The truth is, "War on Terror" is a terrible phrase.

"Terror" is not the enemy. "Terror" is not beatable. And it's certainly not something you can declare war on, any more than you can declare war on drugs or inflation.

No, we do have an enemy, and we should name it: this is a war against Islamofascists, people who use the Muslim religion as the fig-leaf of choice for an age-old police state philosophy which would reduce all mankind -- starting with their fellow Muslims -- to the level of inmates in a gulag.

There's a reason Yassir Arafat's uncle -- the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who torpedoed peace between Arabs and Jews in the 1940s -- spent most of World War II aiding the Nazis; there's a reason his Nazi-sympathizing patron, Reza Shah, renamed Persia (so-named since Bible …