I fully expect PD to respond with "Of course it's an act of war, even Hawkish Politician X said it was. If someone were to bomb us, we'd consider it an act of war, etc."
To which I would say, of course it's an act of war. But to continually refer to a limited strike as "the war" while making implicit and explicit comparisons to the Iraq invasion/occupation, joking about how there's going to be a draft, etc. is disingenuous. It's taking advantage of a catch-all term, and eliding the difference between your subject and the connotation of your words.
Like calling Polanski's victim a "teenager" because she was 13, calling Trayvon Martin a "criminal" cause he had been caught with marijuana, or calling some old, expired stocks of ricin "WMD's" because it validates the Iraq invasion. We don't refer to the Osirak strike as the Israel-Iraq War, or Clinton's strike against Al-Shifa as the Sudan War, or Reagan's bombing of Tripoli as the Libyan War.
