Washington ? President Bush and White House officials still use the phrase “war on terrorism” to describe the global fight against al-Qaida and other militant extremists.

But with the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and a recent surge in terrorist bombings, there is growing sentiment at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration to retire “war” and use broader terms.

The internal debate broke into the open last week when Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the National Press Club that he had “objected to the use of the term ‘war on terrorism’ before.”

“Because, if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution. And it’s more than terrorism,” Myers said. He said “violent extremists” were “the real enemy here and terror is the method they use.”

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld already has moved away from the “war on terror” description, saying the conflict is a “global struggle against violent extremism.”

Bush has not wavered, however, since the term took hold after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Asked about the language Rumsfeld and Myers were using, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “I think that they’re just talking in greater detail about what we’re engaged in.”

An analyst who has studied the Iraq war’s effect on U.S. politics said the administration “purposely commingled the war on terror and the war in Iraq.”

“We’re going to have an interesting time watching how the Bush people get themselves out of this rhetoric cul-de-sac,” said Stephen J. Cimbala, a Penn State University political science professor.