Earlier this week, the United Kingdom announced that they would stop using the monicker "war on terrorism." Describing the bombs of last summer, Sir Ken Macdonald said, "The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers. They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way." Also, the phrase "Islamic terrorist" will no longer be used by the government.

It has been hard these past six years to wage war on a concept. "War on terrorism" is in the same vein as "war on drugs" or "war on pornography": whom are you fighting, really? We cannot have unilateral wars on ideas. Wars happen between people and should be referred to as such. Nevertheless, the word "terrorism" should not be thrown out of discourse, for it is useful to describe the actions of civilians who attempt to terrorize other civilians. Again, I refer all readers to Mark Jurgensmeyer's Terror in the Mind of God, which is an excellent primer for understanding how terrorism works.

Words are important. Dr. Robert Thurston of the Miami University history faculty makes a distinction between "terror" and "terrorism": the former is perpetrated by a government upon its own people (cf. France's "Reign of Terror," 1792-3), while the latter is perpetrated by civilians -- whether foreign or domestic -- upon other civilians for the purpose of instilling fear as a tactic of part of a larger plan for something. Furthermore, to use the word "terrorists" homogeneously as President Bush so often does is to create the belief that all terrorists engage in terrorism for the same reasons. Al-Qaeda uses terrorism to further its stated goals of: (1) U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia; (2) elimination of Israel; and (3) a theocratic pan-Islamic alliance. Hezbollah is a religious terrorist group, while Hamas is not religious. The IRA never wanted to take over the world and spread its message of "evil"; it wanted Irish independence. End of story. The PLO wanted independence for Palestine, not to take over the world. The notion that all terrorist organizations have the same aspirations as Adolf Hitler is a faulty one at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. We were led to believe, for example, that Saddam Hussein wanted to take over the Middle East. In fact, Saddam was content to rule his country with his own personality cult. His aspirations did not extend outside his borders, except when it came to Kuwait, which he thought was his to take, anyway.

The Bush administration has done a thorough job of dismantling complex discourse and replacing it with bumper-sticker slogans. There's no need to understand the intricate historical, linguistic, and religious relationships among all the Middle Eastern countries. All you need to know is that every Middle Eastern country -- except Saudi Arabia! -- wants to destroy Israel, and the United States is here to bring light to darkness. The fact that the ideal solution for Iraq would be to separate it into three states is of no concern: just understand that it's bad. This anti-intellectual and anti-curoisity attitude (don't investigate for yourself; just trust that I'm right!) is endemic of politics for the last six years. Witness it in the domestic sphere as President Bush insists that no one needs to worry about his warrantless wiretapping program because "constitutional safeguards are in place," as he said in Buffalo in 2005.

How's this for a New Years Resolution: don't be complacent with information. When an authority figure tells you something, do as the Great Reagan once suggested: "Trust, but verify."