Tough choice.

Of course, that all changed in 2002, when they decided to get ready to go after Iraq. I still think that was needless escalation.

You'd be right, though, to question how effective actually fighting a military "War on Terror" (sort of like how we've been fighting a war on drugs, with military aid and support in South America) actually is. There were a number of signs of the 9/11 attacks, after all, before they happened - it's interesting to think what would have happened had, say, the INS picked up on the expired visas of some of the plotters, and grabbed them to send home.

Seven-plus years later, I haven't the slightest idea what the GWOT entails.
That, not the phrase itself, is the problem.

To some extent, I have to disagree, because it is not the phrase, so much as the thought processes behind it and the phrase is indicative of that thinking.

For starters, as dangerous as Al Quaeda is, they are no where near the threat to us as Germany and Japan were in WW II. To raise them to that level imparts a certain "legitamacy" to thier "cause" and creates a great recruiting tool for them to use.

Besides, how does one declare war against an idealogy or a tactic? And as Dave said,

Strategic ambiguity has its advantages.

Especially for the "military-industrial complex".