I completely agree with CapK's difficulty in using the term "war" to describe the situation we find ourselves in, as I too feel it conveys a sense of equals, or at least entities of the same category, in conflict. I desperately want to continue believing that the US is categorically different from a terrorist organization, and that we will not begin carpet-bombing Afghanistan in retaliation for the attacks here.

I keep seeing in my mind's eye the image of Bush and a bunch of US troops leaping into the saddle, charging off to war, and then casting about to find which way they need to ride to find the enemy, as the traditional field of battle appears to be empty. I have no easy answers, but I definitely feel that we need to tread very carefully here, as we're defining a new kind of conflict, and I don't want that definition to include tacit acceptance of the idea that it's okay to shoot from the hip because we're pissed off.

I never expected to be so pleased to have a military man in the role of Sec'ty of State, but it gives me hope to think that Powell, in addition to reading CapK's e-mails, can draw on his own experience and see that waging war on Afghanistan (or Iraq, or others on the list of possibles CapK described earlier) is not the answer here.

As a final thought in this hylarchic jumble, I'd like to commend mav, BobY and TEd for a civil argument over very contentious points, and for keeping this forum a haven of peace in a world where it may become scarce for a time.