Due to the negative aspects of the war on terror -- the pre-mature declaration of "mission accomplished," the abuses at Abu Gharib, the questionable legality of Guantanamo Bay, the warrantless wiretaps at home, and the difficulty in beating down the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan -- by Bush's second term, the idea of the war on terror was losing some of its luster in the United States. In the presidential election year of 2008, the Democratic candidate Barack Obama refused to refer to the campaign against terrorists as the "war on terror" because the term had become so weighted down with negative connotations, and by not using it, he was signaling a change in approach. Once elected, Obama referred to the ongoing struggle as the "Overseas Contingency Operation."

In a very interesting article in the journal American Behavioral Scientist, David S. Meyer (2009) argues that the idea of a war on terror was not inevitable, and an alternative response could have been fashioned around so-called "soft power" measures. These could have included "expanded funding for language instruction and comparative religion in American schools, improved training for first responders in medical emergencies, and an overhaul of the health care system to provide rapid responses to crises." (Meyer, 2009, p. 10) He argues that the Bush Administration forcefully framed the terms of the debate about the response to the terrorist threat and critics of his policy "missed an opportunity to advance broader political agendas." (Meyer, 2009, p. 10) The idea of fighting back with soft power and a law enforcement approach was ridiculed by those in power and made to seem as illegitimate way of attacking the terrorists.

The concept of a "war on terror" is difficult to explain because terrorism is a tactic, not a definable group of people. Airplanes, missiles, tanks, and infantry cannot defeat terror, and the ability to use terrorism is in the hands of small groups or even individuals, which again makes it hard to fight war against it. Also, unlike past American wars against distinct groups or nations, the war on terror relies on people agreeing on what defines terror itself. As the old saying goes, one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter, and this gray area can make building domestic and international support somewhat challenging. Under the current administration, the rhetoric of the war on terror has been shelved in favor of a more multi-lateral approach abroad and a focus on civil liberties at home. However, many of the military tactics, such as the surge in Afghanistan, remain the same. Still, it seems helpful to have moved past the excesses of the early stages of the war on terror.