Phenomenal.(War on Terror)

Among the instant cliches that sprang up after 9/11 was the notion that a "war on terror" is a meaningless concept. "It is misleading to talk of a 'war on terrorism,'" sniffed the distinguished British historian Correlli Barnett only last month. "'Terrorism' is a phenomenon ... You cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy."

Most of us warmongers were inclined, if only in private, to agree with Professor Barnett. We assumed "war on terror" was a polite evasion, the compassionate conservative's preferred euphemism for what was really going on--a war on militant Islam, which would have been harder to square with all those White House Ramadan photo-ops and the interminable presidential speeches about Islam as a "religion of peace."

But here's the interesting thing. Pace the prof, it seems you can wage war against a phenomenon. If the "war on terror" is aimed primarily at al-Qaeda 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.

Pre-9/11, almost every country was openly indifferent to terrorism's global ...