Many years ago, my English teacher stressed to her students that “words matter.” As we close out 2008, as we reflect back on over seven years since 9/11 and about the same number of years since our major response to terror around the globe, I am convinced she was right. Words matter.

Shortly after 9/11 and the devastating attacks on New York, the Pentagon and an empty field in Pennsylvania, I started referring to America’s response as WWT or World War on Terrorism. One of my early columns for this site was in October 2001, titled “WWT …World War on Terrorism.” I also used this phraseology on the set at WRAL and WRAZ when commenting on America’s response to global terrorism.

Over this same time frame, elected leaders and the leadership at the Pentagon often referred to a “Global War on Terror.” Somewhere along the way, politicians, pundits, the media and military leaders started talking about America’s fighting men...

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Federal Communications Commission has sent letters of inquiry to former military officers and several television networks to determine whether they violated the law when the officers offered views of the Iraq war during network appearances.

U.S. Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Rosa DeLaura, D-Conn., forwarded a letter to the FCC and voiced their concerns that these retired military officers failed to note on air their ties to the administration and that they had been receiving briefings from Pentagon officials as to the status of the war in Iraq and elsewhere. There is a presumption here that they were being fed the party line and that the Pentagon expected it to be the basis for the retired officers on air commentary.

Dingell and DeLaura also noted that many of the retired officers were “simultaneously representing more than 150 companies competing for billions in Pentagon contracts.” By law, apparently, the network...

America’s longtime partner in the Global War on Terror is acting somewhat less like a partner these days.

This week, there were more reports, some of which were validated by the Defense Department, that Pakistani military units were firing on our U.S. aircraft near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. That doesn’t strike me as partnership.

Following a major political shakeup earlier this year and a new leadership element in Pakistan, there have been increased reasons for concern – as there has been for years. But with the recent suicide bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad and the scores of deaths and injuries in that attack, along with the firing on U.S. aircraft along the ill-defined border with Afghanistan, there is increased anxiety on the part of our national leadership. Just how stable is the new Pakistani administration, and are they able to cope with their internal and external security?

To me, the overall concern must be a nuclear concern....

As we all know too well, there are two U.S. senators vying for the world’s toughest and most demanding job – president of the United States of America. They are campaigning all over the country 24/7 as they approach election day on Nov. 4.

Their arduous schedules are demanding, tiring and continuous. There is no letup in this marathon race to the White House. Different audiences, different cities, different messages all along the way. But none of that is anywhere near the demanding schedule the victor will inherit on 20 January 2009.

Imagine going to the office – Oval Office in this case – each day confronted with satisfying some 300 million citizens of your own country and then dealing with the leaders of nearly 200 other countries around the globe. Nearly all of which look to the United States for leadership. Here at home, you are straddled with an anemic economy, a credit and housing crisis, immigration, education and health issues of...

At least according to one senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, the end is in sight. This week, we are getting word that the United States and Iraq have reached an understanding on a time line for the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces from Iraq.

Although the tentative agreement would still require approval from President Bush and the Iraqi Parliament and government, there does seem to be more clarity to an end date than we have seen previously. Clearly, the situation on the ground will always have an impact, but we are now seeing a sense that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will soon be able to provide their own security for much of the country and will rely less and less on the coalition forces.

The tentative agreement as reported by the media would have Iraqis responsible for security in all of the major cities by the summer of 2009. It also calls for the withdrawal of nearly all U.S. forces by the end of 2011. This clearly indicates some significant improvements...