What do you call children who fail to learn from their parents and decide instead to kill them? Successors. It's literally child's play. Only with real vehicles and guns instead of toy ones. In many respects, this is the world we live in. How long will it last? Well, it depends on the mercy of the parent. Which I fear may be less than everlasting if the old adage of the apple doesn't fall far from the tree bears any fruit.

So, Taliban is back mostly in Afghanistan. Anything new changed or is it same old? — Shawn

Very possible that a similar thing that happened with South Vietnam or more similar equivalent, the collapse of the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, is now taking place in Afghanistan. The US is already getting Afghans that have worked with them to safety. Things look bleak for the US. Another lost war I guess.

First it was half a year, now it's to estimates like these, that the government may fall eveb in a few weeks:



These kind of statistics just tel how bad it is:

The most naive thing is to think that Afghanistan was a failure. It was a tremendous success that helped transfer billions of tax dollars straight into the pockets of American weapons manufacturers. Which in turn, kept the wheels spinning in the backwater of rural America in which their plants and factories are located. The only failure is that it has come to an end. Dead American soldiers and hundreds and thousands of Afghan dead and maimed were - and will continue to be - the simple collateral for the price of business.

They believe in something, be it spirit or flesh. Each have their own rewards and consequences. As to what is eternal or "real" essentially, that's something perhaps we'll never know. Of course, man is a misled creation from the get go, as some say.

For all that they claim has been a success in the beaten way of jurisprudence and arms proliferation, I would prefer to leave American military strategists with the existential crisis they are sure to now develop because of that they lost to a decentralized insurgency in a country whose only real natural resource is opium. All of the military technology in the world was no match for people who are still riding on horseback and believe in what they're fighting for.

On the special features of The Battle of Algiers, there's an interview with an American military strategist where he explains that they show the film to people within the military so as to highlight the importance of morale, something that they only consider as psychological operations, in determining the victor of any given martial conflict. Had the United States truly believed that they could establish a veritable Liberal democracy within Afghanistan, they may have been able to sway the Afghan populace so as to effectively secure an emergent state that could have protected itself from the Taliban for long enough for their organization to dissolve, not that any Western nation has a right to go around nation-building as such. It is because of the cynical self-interest in waging the conflict that we will eventually have to consider it as a loss.

I, clearly, think that we never should have been there in the first place. I just don't want for American military strategists to be let to deny what the conflict in Afghanistan should have revealed to them after having been there for a few years any longer.


The Taliban will live, fight, and die for their beliefs. Without some form of humanitarian catastrophe, they will continue to fight and they will eventually win. I don't agree with the American presence in the first place, but, with it did come a certain degree of hope for Afghan citizens, though this has always been sort of false promise, of creating a veritable Liberal democratic state. Were I to live there now, I would run to wherever it is that I could. Godspeed to those who must!

American military strategists with the existential crisis they are sure to now develop because of that they lost to a decentralized insurgency in a country whose only real natural resource is opium. — thewonder

This is very cute assuming that said strategists had any say in the matter. The American miltary is a private militia for private interests masquerading as a public institution. Their role is to die when needed, that's all.

Eh, even if you just chalk it up to arms capital, which I wouldn't necessarily, people within those positions do occupy positions of power within whatever networks of influence. It's not as if American military commanders are mere puppets of Halliburton and Lockheed Martin. In order to become a military official, you have to come up through or be granted a position within the various networks of influence that comprise of the overarching martial order, and, so, the do have actual power.

Well sure, bureaucrats have power.

Right, but what I'm saying is that, though some of said bureaucrats do only really have power in the formal sense, to even be given such a position, you have to come up through certain networks of influence, thereby making it somewhat requisite to accumulate power in an actual sense so as to maintain said positions. There are people who just draw up plans and look at forms, but, I'd suspect that the majority of military officials do actually have a certain degree of network-power.

The Taliban will live, fight, and die for their beliefs. Without some form of humanitarian catastrophe, they will continue to fight and they will eventually win. — thewonder

Ok,

I think just first we have to think who we are talking about when we talk about "the students", "The Taliban".

Because in truth I don't think there is a highly controlled and organized fighting force as "The Taliban". How many of them are local militias, smugglers, groups controlled by some warlord that has been deemed to part of the Taliban? It simply seems an easy term to call every insurgent. I'm very sceptical about the idea that all of the fighters now fighting the Afghan government share the same beliefs and ideology and follow the same leaders. Some things are quite easy to understand: to fight the foreign invaders, to reinstate Sharia law and have an Islamic state. And that where it ends, basically.

I am sure that the group formed with the assistance of the Pakistani Intelligence Services that was called "The Taliban", that took a large part of the country decades ago, isn't the the same organization now. A proper question is how close is the "Taliban" to the "Mujahideen" fighters that opposed the Soviets and the Pro-Soviet Afghan regime? Once the Pro-Soviet regime fell, anarchy prevailed.

I think the worst outcome is that they indeed take control of Afghanistan...and then it's a pariah state that nobody wants to have any relations with. And the outcome can be similar anarchy as in the 1990's.

in truth I don't think there is a highly controlled and organized fighting force as "The Taliban". How many of them are local militias, smugglers, groups controlled by some warlord that has been deemed to part of the Taliban? — ssu

If there is not 'a highly controlled and organized fighting force as "The Taliban"', how can you explain
their success? And why is the current Afghan government's military so demoralized and helpless?

I think just first we have to think who we are talking about when we talk about "the students", "The Taliban". — ssu

I am using "The Taliban" to refer to the entire loosely affiliated set of Afghan insurgents, more or less to avoid having to list any number of particular political factions within the region.

I think the worst outcome is that they indeed take control of Afghanistan...and then it's a pariah state that nobody wants to have any relations with. And the outcome can be similar anarchy as in the 1990's. — ssu

I don't think that the situation which we are about to face is either desirable or avoidable. They conquered the entire surrounding areas of the capitals, as well as, now, a third of the capitals themselves, in only three months and are only gaining momentum. All the hope in the world isn't going bring any form of peace or stability to the region. What I think that we need to begin to consider is how it is that we can provide living accommodations for the massive amounts of Afghan refugees that are about to become displaced.

Perhaps, the Afghan military is more capable than I am estimating, but, I think that the American estimates for the fall of Kabul, within one to three months, are nothing but accurate. There's an entire generation of Afghans who grew up believing that civil rights could be established within their country. They thought that the West was going to build schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. None of that is going to happen. They need to figure out how to leave the country as soon as possible.

The War on Terror unlike the War on Drugs is a war on the word "terror", liable to the fancies of powerful states. The latter war is a war with chemicals, and so far, the chemicals are winning - or at least not losing.

To fight a word though, is quite futile and leads to much misery and will continue to do so.

If there is not 'a highly controlled and organized fighting force as "The Taliban"', how can you explain
their success? — Number2018

Just as I can explain the success of the "Mujahideen" when the Najibullah regime collapsed in Afghanistan. In the end they did take Kabul. When a government collapses, you don't have to have an large, organized and tightly controlled army to take over.

Let's take for example the rapid success of the ISIS in Northern Iraq. There the soldiers were from the South, mainly Shias in Sunni territory. Once when the officers fled, nothing else for the soldiers to do than flee also: not worth anything to kill themselves for nothing. The interesting part is that those fighters who then took control of large cities and regions didn't know they were actually ISIS.

Yet if the World sees everybody as "the Taleban", then it doesn't matter so much for the Taleban leaders. They firmly can talk on behalf of everybody. It's their problem only after they take power.

And why the current Afghan government's military is so demoralized and helpless? — Number2018

Well, that's what you get when an army has corrupted high ranking officers pocketing the salaries of non-existent soldiers and troops that are high on drugs. If you look at any documentary about the ANA (Afghan National Army), it's quite miserable. The actual difference now is that the Taleban don't hide their faces to the news media (they aren't been tracked) and a lot of the equiment they use is American. That wasn't so five years ago. The Afghan National Army is collapsing now.

I am using "The Taliban" to refer to the entire loosely affiliated set of Afghan insurgents, more or less to avoid having to list any number of particular political factions within the region. — thewonder

This is how it should be viewed. I agree.

Perhaps, the Afghan military is more capable than I am estimating, but, I think that the American estimates for the fall of Kabul, within one to three months, are nothing but accurate. There's an entire generation of Afghans who grew up believing that civil rights could be established within their country. They thought that the West was going to build schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. None of that is going to happen. They need to figure out how to leave the country as soon as possible. — thewonder

The fall of Afghanistan would have serious consequences. It could be well the end of the US as a Superpower and the beginning of it being just the Largest Great Power.

The saying that Great Powers go to Afghanistan to die is so tempting.

It is called the "graveyard of empires" for a reason.

Considering the situation militarily, it seems to me that we could reengage within the conflict only to come to more or less the same conclusion in another twenty years and be faced with a similar situation, exceed the shock and awe utilized by the Soviet military, perhaps, fourfold and rack up a body-count approaching the number of lives lost during the Rwandan genocide, a strategy that I hope most people are willing to rule out, so as to ostensibly "win", or to, as Joe Biden has, leave it to the Afghan military to just kind of have at it on their own.

In the article you previously posted in this thread, Biden expressed faith within both the military and nation-building capacities of the emergent Afghan government. Perhaps, that'd be a better way of looking at the conflict? As bleak as it is for me to say, as well as even potentially damaging, I just simply don't think that the insurgency either can or will be quelled or even halted in any determinate future. I would advise the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to engage to what limited degree they have to so as to safeguard the livelihood of as many as possible and capitulate when the time comes to do so so as to limit the bloodshed of what is now a civil war as much as possible. Neither they nor anyone else wants to hear that, though.

The fall of Afghanistan would have serious consequences. It could be well the end of the US as a Superpower and the beginning of it being just the Largest Great Power. — ssu

About 12 years ago, The International Institute for Strategic Studies
in London has developed a cynical strategy of withdrawal from Afghanistan. It could be divided into
tribal and religious fractions. Then, the US could choose one of the sides and benefit from managing
a controlled civil war and anarchy. So, what is going on there can become an invitation ( a lure) for the next
Power (China) to get involved.

So, what is going on there can become an invitation for the next
Power (China) to get involved. — Number2018

@ssu, what's Russia been up to with regards to Afghanistan?

Russia has been having joint military excersizes in Tajikistan near the Afghan border. They are worried about the Taliban spreading to the Cental Asian countries.

Here's an informative news clip from Russia Today explaining the Russian view very well:

Large-scale wargames have been held in Tajikistan, bringing together soldiers from three former Soviet republics to practice targeting enemy combatants and securing the border with neighboring Afghanistan, as the US withdraws.

A video of the equipment. Training seems very Russian.

About 12 years ago, The International Institute for Strategic Studies
in London has developed a cynical strategy of withdrawal from Afghanistan. It could be divided into
tribal and religious fractions. Then, the US could choose one of the sides and benefit from managing
a controlled civil war and anarchy. So, what is going on there can become an invitation for the next
Power (China) to get involved. — Number2018

That's unlikely. The Chinese are fine with just putting their own muslims, the Uyghurs in concentration camps. And there are high mountains between Afghanistan and China, so the idea of a huge influx of Taliban to China is absurd.

Has anybody seen the The War Machine? I think it portrays extremely well just how the US has handled this war (even if it likely takes some artistics freedoms). Out of sight, out of mind.

That's unlikely. The Chinese are fine with just putting their own muslims, the Uyghurs in concentration camps. And there are high mountains between Afghanistan and China, so the idea of a huge influx of Taliban to China is absurd.

Has anybody seen the The War Machine? I think it portrays extremely well just how the US has handled this war (even if it likely takes some artistics freedoms). Out of sight, out of mind — ssu

It's easy to criticize the US; but, let's not loose track of Iraq, which was a spectacular victory for the US, yet with casualties estimated in a million people.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Taliban exist and are doing well. They're actually the only uniting theme for Afghanistan if nobody intervenes, and it just might be jihad against foreigners in the country.

Now that the second and the third largest city has fallen and both the US and UK are sending troops to evacuate their embassies, the case seems to be clear. The Afghan National Army is simply collapsing. What is telling is that the non-Pashtun North has been taken by the Taleban, the basic support region of the "Northern Alliance", the place where the current Pro-US administration had it's roots. Without that the collapse is quite understandable.

It's easy to criticize the US; but, let's not loose track of Iraq, which was a spectacular victory for the US, yet with casualties estimated in a million people. — Shawn

Spectacular victory? How can you state Iraq being a spectacular victory? The Iraqi government wants the US out. It basically has Iran backed militias as part of it's armed forces.

Even the Iranians have made missile strikes into US bases during the Trump era.

Have you followed the situation there? Just a quick Google-search brings up news articles like this FROM THIS SUMMER:

June 28, (CNBC) The Biden administration said Sunday’s “defensive precision airstrikes” targeted weapons storage facilities in Syria and another location in Iraq.

“The targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby wrote in an evening statement.

BAGHDAD/AMMAN, July 7 (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats and troops in Iraq and Syria were targeted in three rocket and drone attacks in the past 24 hours, U.S. and Iraq officials said on Wednesday, including at least 14 rockets hitting an Iraqi air base hosting U.S. forces, wounding two American service members.

While there were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attacks - part of a wave targeting U.S. troops or areas where they are based in Iraq and Syria - analysts believed they were part of a campaign by Iranian-backed militias.

Iraqi militia groups aligned with Iran vowed to retaliate after U.S. strikes on the Iraqi-Syrian border killed four of their members last month.

What is the spectacular success if the US is now basically fighting parts of the Iraqi military?

One of my favorite photos: an Iraqi Hezbollah fighter posing with their American M1 Abrams tank. Do note the Iraqi flag behind the yellow Hezbollah flag. Tells how fucked up the whole situation is.


I think there are genuine reasons for criticism for US foreign policy and the way it's fighting these wars in the Middle East. Biden hasn't made anything better in a situation that has been, well, a disaster after Bush had this great idea to invade Iraq and basically abandon Afghanistan. To say it's not fighting a war simply doesn't cut it. And to get Peace deal, there simply has to be an incentive to stop fighting and opt for peace. No side has opted for peace when the war's objectives are just in their grasp and seem to be easy to obtain.

Had the United States truly believed that they could establish a veritable Liberal democracy within Afghanistan, they may have been able to sway the Afghan populace so as to effectively secure an emergent state that could have protected itself from the Taliban for long enough for their organization to dissolve, not that any Western nation has a right to go around nation-building as such. It is because of the cynical self-interest in waging the conflict that we will eventually have to consider it as a loss. — thewonder

Remember what the first policy was when the US invaded Afghanistan: It wasn't there for nation building. It was there only to get Osama bin Laden (who fled to Pakistan). And then, during the crucial time after, the Bush was interested in Afghanistan, it was busy invading another country.

I've come to the conclusion that American policy made sense only when there was a strong counter force, basically the Soviet Union, that made Americans to think twice about what they would do. Americans had to actually think about what would be the countermove done by the USSR. This actually put some sense into it's actions. The last "sane" foreign war was how older Bush created a grand coalition to respond to Saddam's Iraq annexing Kuwait. Then the US went to the UN, did asked from the USSR if it would be OK, gathered muslim nations like Egypt, Syria, Morocco, the Gulf States. ABOVE ALL, listened to it's Arab allies! It didn't march into Baghdad. The hubris hadn't taken over.

And from there onwards it has been an absolute disaster. American foreign policy deciders came punch drunk of the easiness of doing whatever and absolute idiots full of hubris as the neocons erased away everything what was left of a rational and cautious foreign policy. Nothing did matter anymore. What were the actual political situation on the ground in these countries? How would other nations react? That was totally meaningless. The US could do whatever it wanted and it went on into this crazy binge of being a bully. Making alliances simply wasn't anymore the goal, it was either you are with us or you are against us. Moronic stupidity overwhelmed everything. Because, why not? Nobody cared. There were no backlashes. War on Terror, war against a method. And once Bush the younger made it so, no President couldn't escape the trap as everything was already FUBAR.

And from there onwards it has been an absolute disaster. American foreign policy deciders came punch drunk of the easiness of doing whatever and absolute idiots full of hubris as the neocons erased away everything what was left of a rational and cautious foreign policy. Nothing did matter anymore. What were the actual political situation on the ground in these countries? How would other nations react? That was totally meaningless. The US could do whatever it wanted and it went on into this crazy binge of being a bully. — ssu

Moronic stupidity overwhelmed everything. Because, why not? Nobody cared. There were no backlashes. War on Terror, war against a method. And once Bush the younger made it so, no President couldn't escape the trap as everything was already FUBAR. — ssu

The neocons are not in the current administration. But, it looks like you are right and even now American foreign (and others) policies are shaped by the logic of phantasmic and imagenary achievements. What makes it possible and even necessary? Likely, in the US there is no
place for a neutral and independent position that allows to make weighted and qualified judgements. That is why the narative of building a self-sustainable Afghan government
and military has been so persistent.

Had we merely waged a counter-terrorist operation against Al-Qaeda, that could also have been an effective strategy. It probably would have been the most sensible thing for the United States Military to have done.

That, of course, is not what happened, however, and, now, as the Taliban now control half of the provincial capitals, and American security advisors are evacuating the country and have even pleaded with the Taliban not to attack the United States Embassy in Kabul, it seems that their rule is imminent.

Clearly, this is not a great situation for the people of Afghanistan or the world at large. However, without the ever illusive "West" to fight against, I doubt that the Taliban will be capable of retaining power in Afghanistan for any considerable amount of time. It'll function as a hub for Islamic extremism for a period of time before returning to the land of feuding warlords that it more or less has always been, which, of course, is little to no consolation to the Afghan people, but not necessarily a concern of ours.

As uncouth as it is to say, I'm kind of impressed. I looked at the news yesterday and they had taken 11 out of the 34 provincial capitals. When I looked at it today, they had taken 17 out of the 34 provincial capitals. This is like the Islamic fundamentalist equivalent of that part of War and Peace when they drive the French army out of Russia.

It's all a very tragic situation, particularly for the Afghan people, though I do think adds a certain credibility to Tolstoy's theory that morale is the decisive factor in military battles, even today.

The neocons are not in the current administration. But, it looks like you are right and even now American foreign (and others) policies are shaped by the logic of phantasmic and imagenary achievements. What makes it possible and even necessary? Likely, in the US there is no
place for a neutral and independent position that allows to make weighted and qualified judgements. That is why the narative of building a self-sustainable Afghan government
and military has been so persistent. — Number2018

This is so true.

Current administrations cannot avoid the utterly fucked up situations that the previous ones have put them. What seldom is talked is how slavishly Obama continued the Bush era War on Terror even with increasing the drone attacks all over.

The problem is that on many times when these generals and policy experts are interviewed, they are extremely rational, sound and totally aware of reality. So what happens? Why we get these insane ideas of going into Iraq to get the WMDs and it will be a cheap war and the we don't have to put much effort in nation building? How can the US get things so wrong when in the end many of the leading persons are quite intelligent?

I think the reason is this twisted delusional political discourse that is totally separated from actual reality: It's about getting the bad guys. It's "restoring democracy". It's these ideas that you have to invade and occupy a country because a small cabal of terrorists were financed by people that stayed in the country.

This simplified political rhetoric will simply avoid issues like what are the reactions of neighboring countries? How does the actions of the US play into the domestic politics of the country? Above all, when you have the hammer, the US armed forces, every problem looks like a nail. It's so easy. There aren't limitations in military interventions as other countries have: you have the SEAL team on stand by, the CIA armed drones in the air, the Submarine with the cruise missile just out at sea. Hence it's so easy.

Had we merely waged a counter-terrorist operation against Al-Qaeda, that could also have been an effective strategy. It probably would have been the most sensible thing for the United States Military to have done. — thewonder

How about treating the whole thing as you did treat the previous World Trade Center bombers? To make it a police matter. To get finally the FBI hunt them down from Pakistan. And to put them into an ordinary jail in the US? Osama bin Laden been put into prison like the previous terrorist, which actually were relatives to some of the 9/11 terrorists (such small cabal we are talking about).

How impossible would that would have been?


Quite impossible, I guess. Americans wanted, demanded, and had that 20 years war.

How about treating the whole thing as you did treat the previous World Trade Center bombers? To make it a police matter. — ssu

I agree, though, I think that there's a counter-terrorism branch, of what, who knows, in the United States that handles such things internationally.

Quite impossible, I guess. Americans wanted, demanded, and had that 20 years war. — ssu

You don't live here, and, so, don't quite see how the general mindset was sort of instilled. Sure, in any given democracy, even a flawed one like ours, people do still have some relative autonomy, and, so, some things are really autopoietic, but there was a certain element of the American populace having been driven to support the war, in part, by our news media, and, in part, by the Bush administration. I can't say that we would have invaded had even Joe Biden been in office back in 2001. Perhaps? It's all kind of speculative, though.

Edit:

According to Wikipedia, The Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism is a bureau of the United States Department of State, and, so, it is tied to the federal government and there is a counter-terrorism division within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but I think that they primarily handle domestic terrorism, whereas this organization, which doesn't really seem to be connected to the FBI, handles international terrorism. To call it a branch of our government may have been somewhat in error, as it could easily be a kind of free floating organization, if you will.

They could be the counter-terrorism division connected to the FBI or just some of administrative counter-terrorism bureau, but, in the general course of my life as an American citizen, I do remember encountering a counter-terrorism organization that didn't seem to be connected to our police, military, or intelligence service. I could have just remembered this incorrectly, but I think that there's some sort of organization that apparently has a certain degree of autonomy who does somehow handle international terrorism. I don't really know, though.

Reflections on the Battle of Algiers: Poetic Hypertext in Light of Recent Events

The news report from the calm of the eye at the center of the storm in Kabul on CNN is quite eerie. There are also conflicting messages that the United States is sending to the Afghan military with Pentagon representative John Kirby identifying the military advantages of the Afghan military, our officials urging the Afghans to fight, and our destroying documents in our embassy, and our rather immediate evacuation of personnel. Our security advisors have accepted defeat already and our probably already planning for a new phase in the so-called "War on Terror" and The New York Times merely states the obvious.

Years ago, I predicted this would happen. In my generalized madness, I tried to explain to our security forces and the associated press that they didn't understand The Battle of Algiers. It's about much more, you should consider that, but, on some level, the implicit purpose of the café bombings was to draw out the tanks and to bring them to torture, which Jean-Luc Godard, in The Little Soldier, was right to characterize as having been "so monstrous and so sad". It was a way of revealing to the world the brute truth to the French occupation and galvanizing support among the Algerian populace, a way of revealing just what was at stake for all parties involved. Because the National Liberation Front had something to live and die for, they could only win. It's as if, by writ of God, only those with faith in their cause can win.

The Battle of Algiers was Andreas Baader's favorite film. He, of course, was either assassinated or committed suicide in Stammheim Prison. It's our organizational structure, that of the decentralized network, one that was born out of terrorist cells, that groups like the Taliban have adopted, coupled, of course, with what they've learned from American intelligence. In a way, Islamic extremist groups are like a dark projection of fears over anarchism. There is just ruthless fanaticism and generalized chaos.

The Taliban, of course, are quite different from the FLN. Still, though I doubt that he watches many films, were you to ask Abdul Ghani Baradar what his favorite is, I'd bet that he'd tell you that it's The Battle for Algiers.

They still don't get it, and I just don't know how to explain it to anyone.

You don't live here, and, so, don't quite see how the general mindset was sort of instilled. — thewonder

Just think about it.

Look at the following video below. It is the famous time when George Bush visited the Twin Towers site, ground zero, after 9/11. Notice the response when Bush says that "The people who knocked these buildings down, will hear from all of us soon". That response actually perfectly portrays the feelings then.



Now imagine if after this, then how Bush would have continued would have only been a police investigation and heightened security. No military involvement. Think about the reaction to that. How it would have been felt as Bush being totally indifferent.

Don't blame the Republicans on this. Madeleine Albright, a close member of the Gore team wrote in Foreign Policy that even if it would have been a Gore administration in 9/11, the democrats would surely would have invaded Afghanistan too. They likely wouldn't have gone to Iraq, but Afghanistan would have happened.

That's why I say that this was unavoidable. Only a larger than life politician could have followed the "respond to terrorism as a police matter" path when the US has the mightiest armed forces in the World. Above all, let's remember that Clinton had already fought against the Bin Laden group and had fired cruise missiles to some possible training camps in Afghanistan. The war on terror was actually started before 9/11.

(In response to Al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration destroyed a medical plant in Sudan in error. Oops! So the war on terror was already under way.)