MARK STEYN WRITES that those of us who criticized the concept of a “war on terror” were, well, wrong:
We assumed “war on terror” was a polite evasion, the compassionate conservative’s preferred euphemism for what was really going on – a war against militant Islam, which, had you designated it as such, would have been harder to square with all those White House Ramadan photo-ops and the interminable presidential speeches about Islam being a “religion of peace.”
But here’s the interesting thing. Pace the historian, it seems you can wage war against a phenomenon. If the “war on terror” is aimed primarily at al-Qaida and those of similar ideological bent, it seems to have had the happy side-benefit of discombobulating various non-Islamic terrorists from Colombia to Sri Lanka.
This isn’t because these fellows are the administration’s priority right now, but rather because it’s amazing what a little light scrutiny of international wire transfers can do. . . .
He seems to be right.