…but, as a Washington Post editorial concludes:
…the threat is “a matter of vital national interest,” it is “global,” and it requires a military response, with NATO’s participation. It seems the “global war on terrorism” will continue — only without the name. There is some logic to that: Mr. Obama is acutely aware of the damage done by the Bush administration to American prestige in Europe and throughout the Muslim world, and he has spoken much this week of a fresh start. As many have pointed out, the old term was awkward — “terror” describes a means of war, not an enemy. The challenge for the new administration is to describe that enemy and the campaign against it in ways that convey its urgency to both Americans and foreign audiences — and that unite rather than polarize. In that respect, Mr. Obama made a good start in Strasbourg.
Now if only Prime Minister Harper would make a similar case to Canadians–see Upperdate here.