I open Impromptus today with an item about war — specifically, the word “war” itself. Are we in one, against ISIS (or whatever your preferred term for these savages is)? John Kerry told a congressman that he could call our efforts a war if it made him “more comfortable.”

Awfully sporting of him, right?

Well, what are you comfortable with? Me, I’m getting ever more open to the term “war.” One reason is, I’ve had it up to here with euphemisms. This is what I wanted to address in this little blogpost.

After 9/11, we were in a War on Terror. Some people thought that was a euphemism, and a dodge: “You cannot be at war against a tactic. We need to name the enemy clearly, and it is radical and violent Islam.”

I never bought that line. Everyone knew what was meant by “War on Terror.” We were not talking about the IRA or the Baader-Meinhof Gang (anymore).

But when the Obamites came in, they deep-sixed “War on Terror” and adopted “overseas contingency operations.” They also dropped “terrorism” in favor of “man-caused disaster.”

(The Left is usually allergic to the good generic term “man.” Or were they being sex-specific?)

In Libya, we were undertaking “kinetic action.” Wha’ . . .? That was positively insulting, I thought: Quit using made-up cutesy language that no one knows when we’re sending our people into harm’s way.

Look, after all these years I’m still miffed at the Clintonian trick of referring to government spending as “investments.” Back in the 2000 campaign, the George W. Bush people were scared of the word “privatization,” where the candidate’s Social Security reforms were concerned. Hence we had the term “personalization.”

I know that in politics language is important, and delicate — a little artistry is sometimes in order. Even a little weasellyness. But I bless those politicians, and others, who say things straight. Clear language is usually a sign of clear thinking.

If we are at war with the Islamic State — which is a good idea (crushing those killers, that is) — just say so.