what if they gave a war on terror and no one came?

british have rejected the terminology of a "war on terror." and, in iraq, where there is definitely a war of some kind, it is becoming increasingly clear that no one wants to be left holding the bag.

• Three retired generals approached about a proposed high-profile post overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned it down, leaving the White House struggling to find anyone of stature willing to take it on.
• One of the four-star generals said he declined because of the chaotic way the Iraq war was being run and because Dick Cheney, the vice-president and leading hawk in the Bush administration, retained more influence than pragmatists looking for a way out.
• The deputy White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, confirmed that George Bush was considering restructuring the administration to create the post, dubbed the war tsar by US media. It would involve co-ordinating the work of the defence, state and other departments and reporting directly to the president at what Ms Perino described as a critical stage in the wars. One retired officer who was approached, Marine General John Sheehan, told the Washington Post: "The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the hell they're going."
• The unwillingness of the generals to take the job undermines attempts by the administration to put a positive spin on the war. Mr Bush says there are signs that his strategy of pouring extra troops into Baghdad and neighbouring Anbar province is working. ("Top US generals reject war tsar role," by Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Guardian Weekly, 22 April 2007)