War and or Peace?

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

~James Madison

A lot of people lately have been arguing that the United States is not (and should not be) engaged in a 'war on terror' and that the phrase itself is counterproductive. Three arguments for ditching the 'war on terror' mindset:

1. The Semantic Argument: Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, H.W. Bush to Panama, Reagan to Grenada, yet these engagements were never really considered to be wars by the public. Why? Because unlike World War II, the general public wasn't asked to make sacrifices, there was no draft, and the casus belli was not a grave, existential threat. (The threats of communism and terrorism have largely been overblown. Al-Qaeda and other likeminded terrorists "are fighting modernity itself." They will continue to be a small group, and they will never attain their goal of a re-established caliphate.)
2. The Constitutional Argument: Everything changes in a period of active war. Murder becomes legal. The executive is allowed to assume expansive powers. But because the threat of terrorism can never be completely eliminated, a war on terror would never end, and the powers the president assumes would be permanent.
3. The Pragmatic Argument: Restraint is a valuable asset in counterterrorism. Overreaction has largely fueled terrorist movements. Terrorism has been reduced almost everywhere, but two noticeable exceptions are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, we should fight terrorists. But it is just that, a fight, not a war. The 'war on terror' is counterproductive.