Let’s hope we need no special title for an armed conflict of the near future.

Anyone remember what terms were used to refer to the global hostilities before Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941?

Was it “the war,” “the conflict,” “the hostilities”? Was it World War II before America became so deeply involved?

We know what happened and what the final reference was to that chain of events. And we know it took a long time for officials to call it “The Korean War” rather than “The Korean Holding Action” or “The Korean Conflict” in the early 1950s.

Clearly, some semanticists don’t have enough to do right now, because they already have begun to try to find an appropriate term for an Iraq conflict involving the United States, Britain and whoever else joins in. Some of the lazier terminologists are saying it should be “World War IV.” Among these is former CIA leader James Woolsey. But does anyone remember what happened to World War III? When did that unfurl? Oh, we’re told, that’s what some called the Cold War involving the Soviet Union. Never quite that, though.

During Operation Desert Storm, the final choice for a title, some were referring to the Kuwaiti-Iraq Affair.

Still others think whatever we do in hostile action against Iraq and its environs should use the term GWOT, Global War on Terrorism. Others have suggested an alternative of “War Against Militant Islam,” or WAMI. Imagine the political and civil rights conflagrations that would spark.

All the while, of course, the large majority of people not only in America but in most other parts of the world hope that negotiations and give-and-take can negate the need for a name for another war. How wonderful if a year from now we’re talking about the WTW, the War That Wasn’t.

The choice of Saddam Hussein to go into exile, and a change of heart by nuclear-oriented North Korea would certainly make that possible.

Gen. Sherman in the Civil War made it quite clear that “war is hell” as he rampaged on his famed march to the sea. And he was with the winning side.

Nobody has ever explained the folly of armed conflict better than native Kansan Bernard Rogers, a heavily decorated Army general and U.S. Army chief of staff. During a visit to Lawrence at one point in his active service, he stressed that the great majority of career armed forces people are peace-loving, despite doubters, because “war is a terrible way to try to do business.”

Right now, the War That Wasn’t surely sounds awfully good.