or radical -- jihaddism or radical islam, it's founded in an ideology that has clearly a religious base to it and we cannot dismiss the seriousness of their belief in that, but what clearly makes it war in my view is the means, which is jihaddism and their use of arms and violence to achieve those political ends and even though they may not be a nation state in some cases, in some cases they are, the fact of the matter is, they are using armed violence to achieve political objectives, which is essentially what war itself is. >> bruce, you don't think so? >> make a distinction between two sorts of problems. one is we certainly recall at war with saddam hussein, and we certainly are at war with the -- with afghanistan, and we are certainly engaging in occupation of these two countries at the present time, trying to prop them up in various ways. so war in that sense is perfectly appropriate. the problem with terrorism is not a problem of war however. it's a different -- it's a real problem. , but it's a very different one. the state is losing its monopoly of force in the 21st century. that

what truly makes a war in my view is the means which is jihaddism and their use of arms to achieve the political. in some cases they are. the fact of the matter is they are using armed violence to achieve political objectives which is essentially what war itself is. >> bruce, you don't think so? -- brewster, you don't think so? >> let's make the distinction, one is we are at war. we certainly are at a war with the -- with afghanistan. and we are certainly engaging in an occupation of these two countries at the present time. trying to prompt them up in various ways. so war in that sense is perfectly appropriate. the problem with terrorism is not a problem of war, however. it's a different -- it's a real problem. but it's a very different one. the state is losing its monopoly of force in the 21st century. that's a problem that would exist even if the middle east became an oasis of peace. what -- you know, -- 9/11 and such events are fundamentally not like pearl harbor. in pearl harbor, you had a state, a war machine, that you knew was going to follow. and could have invaded the united st