I agree that the framing is tendentious (though not necessarily false). But I don't think much actually hinges on that. The point is still worth considering even if it's just a "war" rather than "war on terrorists." The linked article is a study on wars in general, not just wars "on terror."
I doubt that's what GP meant, and I don't think one has to think either of those things to not buy into the "war on terrorism" rhetoric that is used to excuse all sorts of atrocities.
