An article in today's New York Times reports on a military commander of Northern Alliance forces hostile to the Taliban. The Times headline, article and photo cutline describe him as a "warlord." The article reports that "By today he had been 'elected' governor general by thousands of supporters who gathered at a mosque."
Contrast that with how a front-page article in today's New York Times refers to "The Taliban's top leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar." The headline describes him as "Leader." No illuminating references to how Mullah Omar was or was not "elected."
Checking Webster's Second, "war lord" is defined first as "a high military officer in a war-like nation," then as "an aggressive tyrant," then as "in China, a local ruler or bandit leader with some sort of military following in a district where the established government is weak." Webster's New World makes "warlord" one word and modifies definition three to read "as formerly in China."
By those definitions, Mullah Omar certainly qualifies as a war lord. So it is interesting to see the Times use the word to describe an anti-Taliban military commander, but not to describe Mullah Omar.