Phenomenal.

Among the instant cliches that sprang up after 9/11 was the notion that a "war on terror" is a meaningless concept. "It is misleading to talk of a 'war on terrorism,'" sniffed the distinguished British historian Correlli Barnett only last month. "'Terrorism' is a phenomenon ... You cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy."

Most of us warmongers were inclined, if only in private, to agree with Professor Barnett. We assumed "war on terror" was a polite evasion, the compassionate conservative's preferred euphemism for what was really going on--a war on militant Islam, which would have been harder to square with all those White House Ramadan photo-ops and the interminable presidential speeches about Islam as a "religion of peace."

But here's the interesting thing. Pace the prof, it seems you can wage war against a phenomenon. If the "war on terror" is aimed primarily at al-Qaeda and those of similar ideological bent, it seems to have had the happy side-benefit of discombobulating various non-Islamic terrorists from Colombia to Sri Lanka. This isn't because these fellows are the administration's priority right now, but rather because it's amazing what a little light scrutiny of international wire transfers can do.

Pre-9/11, almost every country was openly indifferent to terrorism's global support network. In my own native land, Canada, financial contributions to terrorist groups were tax deductible. Seriously. As part of the repulsive ethnic ward-heeling of the multiculti state, Liberal Party cabinet ministers attended fundraisers for the Tamil Tigers, the terrorist group that's plagued Sri Lanka for two decades. These guys are state-of-the-art terrorists: As the old song says, they were self-detonating before self-detonating was cool. In 1991, they used a female suicide bomber to kill Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, and, until the intifada, they were the market leader in "martyrdom operations." It's somehow sadly symbolic of the general third-rate nature of Palestinian "nationalism" that even its signature depravity should be second-hand.

But oddly enough, Canada's indulgence of Sri Lankan terrorism became part of its defense against American accusations that the Great White North was a soft touch for terrorists. If you pointed out the huge sums of money raised in Canada for terrorism, Ottawa politicians would roll their eyes and patiently explain, ah yes, but most of that's for the Tamils or some such; nothing to do with Osama, nothing Washington needs to get its panties in a twist about. As if destabilizing our Commonwealth cousins in the Indian Ocean had mysteriously become an urgent Canadian policy objective.