From Sky News:
Mr Benn will say in his speech: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
"It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups.
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."
I suspect this has it's roots in some wimpy, politically-correct motivation, or another move to undermine President Bush, but for a moment let's accept it at face value.
If we should be fighting all terrorists--and I believe without a doubt that we should--how do we accomplish that without a common frame of reference for all these barbaric groups? After all, they do share at least a few things in common: hatred of the west, hatred for Israel, support for the supremacy of Islam, and a willingness to target innocent civilians to accomplish their goals.
I will say this much for this British initiative to change the language of the war on terror: unlike many liberals who continually snipe and undermine our efforts to fight these savages, these Brits do at least acknowledge that words mean things, that what we say affects the motivation of the enemy.