'Everyone knows' may apply to how people in your vicinity use that word, but it's not necessarily the case everyone uses, or approves of, this usage.
As others have noted, normalising words with specific and powerful meanings is a way to weaken those words and surreptitiously make the actions they represent more common and palatable.
« A sustained campaign against something undesirable » is already a commonly accepted definition of the word war. It can grow to mean different things in different contexts just as much as any other word can. I think we need a lot more argument to prove the normalization of the word causes peoples perspective of conflict to change
«War is intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.»
Brainwashing seems to work fine, making a "campaign against something undesirable" out of the most horrible bloodshed.
And we're talking about an American company working with an American gov't agency. Why wouldn't how "war" is used in the US be the only thing that matters?
I guess my point is we are well beyond “normalization”. We’ve been using “war against...” for the past 50 years at least.