Can 'The First War Of The 21st Century' Stay The Course?

As previously reported in The Truthiness Blog, the style of the language of our governments tells you an awful lot than the words themselves ever could.

So it was that in last week's

Bush and Blair speech

that the President used that telling phrase, that very telling phrase about being ' in this first war of the 21st century' when refering to the war in Iraq.

You may recall that just after the midterm election, former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used the

same phrase in his speech

once the President had finally accepted his resignation and the calls for him to go .

What exactly could be the reasoning behind the use of such a phrase? It couldn't be that the US government wants to hammer home that it would like the conflict/civil war that the coalition forces started in that country to be branded like a new version of a soft drink?

Is the US eager to have been the first in the World to have the ' First War Of The 21st Century'?

After WMDs

After Freedom and Liberty

After Credible Threat

After Regime Change

After Stay The Course

After We Never Said Stay The Course

we now have this?

Does the subtle attempt to 'brand' as you would a product in a store, a war that has it seems to have no end the most important action to be trying at this point?

Because if Mr President and Mr Prime Minister the 'First War Of The 21st Century' is truly that, then it could end up being a war which last for most of this century and it will hang like a millstone round your necks, unless you change course and change your attitude.