Is the War on Terrorism Worth It?

[ikos9lives]

Is "War on Terrorism" properly focused at the root cause?
Are proper tools being used and in the proper way?

 

[lisab]

Terrorism is a tactic. I don't understand how we can go to war on a tactic.

Maybe that's just semantics.

 

[Pengwuino]

There's a big difference between "Is the War on terrorism worth it"... whatever that means, and "Is the War on Terror being fought in a sensible way".

 

[Office_Shredder]

It is only two letters, so I will gladly pay it if that's all the war on terror is going to cost me. There are more t's where that one came from

 

[Proton Soup]

can you be specific? "war on terror" is just a propaganda slogan.

 

[jeremmed77]

"Is the War on Terror being fought in a sensible way".

Pengwuino said it perfectly. The majority of people around the world would agree that terrorism is something we need to fight, but are our tactics working?

 

[ikos9lives]

can you be specific? "war on terror" is just a propaganda slogan.

For example, an armed fashion Radical Islamists that are chiefly in Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

 

[russ_watters]

For example, an armed fashion Radical Islamists that are chiefly in Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Yes, I think people harp on the grammatical incorrectness of "war on terror" too much in order to avoid the issue: Obviously, this is primarily a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Or more broadly, a war against people who use terrorism against us. It also includes a local law enforcement component, of course (most visible at the airport). "War on terror", while grammatically incorrect is still easier to say in a soundbyte, but I doubt anyone is actually confused about what it means, despite the protests the phrase gets. 'Task which has the goal of keeping us safe from terrorism' just doesn't have as nice a ring to it.

Either way, Proton and lisa - if you didn't know for the past 9 years what it meant, now you do: So do you have an answer?

And by the way, if you've been confused about what the war on drugs, war on crime and war on poverty are about for the past 20 years, I can explain those to you too - probably best to start a new thread for them, though. Of course, they may be more difficult to get straight, as none include any actual war component at all.

 

[BobG]

Yes, I think people harp on the grammatical incorrectness of "war on terror" too much in order to avoid the issue: Obviously, this is primarily a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Or more broadly, a war against people who use terrorism against us. "War on terror", while grammatically incorrect is still easier to say in a soundbyte, but I doubt anyone is actually confused about what it means, despite the protests the phrase gets.

When Bush first used the phrase, the emphasis was distinctly placed on all terrorist groups worldwide and that emphasis actually had an impact.

The [global, all-inclusive] war on terror had an immediate impact on Irish paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. Not only was the public much less sympathetic to their actions, their funding suddenly became reduced to a trickle when their organizations were grouped with the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

It immediately changed the views of Ghaddafi in Libya, with a real effect on Libyan actions. No one wanted to be the second country invaded in the War on Terror.

It immediately changed the political statements of Musharraf in Pakistan, who had a very realistic fear of being the second country invaded in the War on Terror. Unfortunately, the change in Pakistani policies have been much weaker, at least partly because Pakistan's government has had much weaker control of its people.

It even sparked significant changes in the public perception Iran wished to present to the world and even resulted in some offering of cooperation in the War on Terror. These were rebuffed, since Iran was slated to become part of the Axis of Evil.

I still said "No", but I think Pengwuino's answer really captures my attitude about the War on Terror. We kind of saw that 9/11 gave the US 'worldwide political capital' that it could spend and we squandered it on things like Iraq. The Bush administration found it more beneficial to shift the War on Terror to a war against the Axis of Evil, which was a completely separate issue from terrorism. The War on Terror in a global sense just returned to the same basic geopolitical situation we had before 9/11.

 

[Ken Natton]

It is a highly sensitive and emotive debate. Yes terrorism is a tactic, but ‘War on Terror’ is an encompassing label applied to a series of tactics designed to counter the threat of that tactic, and as such, seems a perfectly sensible label to apply. It isn’t a formally declared war in the sense of international diplomacy, but the label is intended to convey the seriousness and the commitment with which the exercise is being undertaken.

So, in response to the thread title, I would say that it isn’t a matter of evaluation. It seems to me that it is a war that the west has no choice but to fight. And I deny absolutely the suggestion that asserting that identifies me as a hawk. I am not at all hawkish, it is with genuine sadness that I recognise this truth. But I believe in liberalism, I believe in freedom of the individual and I recognise that ultimately, that is precisely what is under attack. Is that worth defending? I can brook no doubt about it.

The heart of the debate, I think, is between those who believe that actions taken by the west to eliminate the terrorist threat risk angering the terrorists and thus provoking them into further attacks, and those who believe that it is failing to respond that would encourage the terrorist and lead to an increase in attacks. I belong in the latter group and I believe that the weight of history supports that view. We have good reasons here in Europe to know the flaws in the logic of appeasement.

If you accept, as I do, that a response to the terrorist threat is necessary, then it is only a matter of what are the most effective tactics. It seems clear enough to me that some success at least has been achieved in denuding Al Qaeda’s capacity to operate, but I do not doubt that they continue to pose a very genuine and a very serious threat. It is difficult for those of us without the pertinent knowledge and expertise to really comment on the precise military and diplomatic tactics that produce the best result. But I do believe in the importance of keeping sight of the fact that it is not a war on a culture. It is not a war on Islam. It is a war on anyone prepared to use terrorist tactics to attack liberal freedoms in the pursuit of promoting more restrictive ideologies that seek to impose themselves on non-adherents.

 

[apeiron]

Or more broadly, a war against people who use terrorism against us. It also includes a local law enforcement component, of course (most visible at the airport).

This is back to front reasoning. The argument is that there were better ways of dealing with the problem rather than a series of military invasions of countries. Like a policing action, or a diplomatic action, or an economic action.

Only a "war" justifies armies. It's a simple rhetorical trick that governments play and which citizens get fooled by.

 

[humanino]

One fights terrorism mostly via intelligence, trustable genuine information. Those who invented the idea of "war on terror" are most definitely at the opposite of the spectrum in terms of "intelligence" and "trustable genuine information". They are the kind of people who fail to understand that behind grammatical incorrectness lies ignorance.

 

[Newai]

One fights terrorism mostly via intelligence, trustable genuine information. Those who invented the idea of "war on terror" are most definitely at the opposite of the spectrum in terms of "intelligence" and "trustable genuine information". They are the kind of people who fail to understand that behind grammatical incorrectness lies ignorance.

The gov was already acquiring information, legally and not so legally, from just about everyone. Nine years later, all that information gathering hasn't had much impact.

 

[apeiron]

They are the kind of people who fail to understand that behind grammatical incorrectness lies ignorance.

Agreed. Except it is worse than that. Governments indulged in intentional misdirection to justify their actions - hoaxes like Blair's weapons of mass destruction.

So either the decisions were ignorant, or they had wider purposes which were not being admitted. And indeed probably a mix of both given the folk involved, such as Cheney and Bush.

No one disputes that terrorism has to be dealt with. The only question is what is effective.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed. Except it is worse than that. Governments indulged in intentional misdirection to justify their actions - hoaxes like Blair's weapons of mass destruction.

So either the decisions were ignorant, or they had wider purposes which were not being admitted. And indeed probably a mix of both given the folk involved, such as Cheney and Bush.

No one disputes that terrorism has to be dealt with. The only question is what is effective.

Very true, and deeply depressing. I think your final point is one which highlights the real difficulty here: as has been said earlier, terrorism is a tactic within the rubric of asymmetric warfare, and therefore requires customized responses based on the situation.

 

[mheslep]

There is no War on Terror. Obama ended it, so says the fan boy Washington Post, the day he took office:
Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End
Not modified, or gone in a different direction, but brought it to an End did the President "with a stroke of his pen".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012203929.html

 

[nismaratwork]

There is no War on Terror. Obama ended it, so says the fan boy Washington Post, the day he took office:
Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End
Not modified, or gone in a different direction, but brought it to an End did the President "with a stroke of his pen".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012203929.html

What is WRONG with people?! This would be pure humor if men and women weren't still dying as a result of whatever the hell we wish to call the current conflicts. I guess that writer doesn't obey conservation of momentum of concepts...

Thanks for the read however, it's sad, but interesting.

 

[russ_watters]

This is back to front reasoning. The argument is that there were better ways of dealing with the problem rather than a series of military invasions of countries. Like a policing action, or a diplomatic action, or an economic action.

Only a "war" justifies armies. It's a simple rhetorical trick that governments play and which citizens get fooled by.

Well conspiracy theory aside, it isn't like diplomacy and international policing haven't been tried. Every president in at least the last 30 years has made a serious effort at diplomacy on the broader issue of ME peace. All I am saying is give war a chance. Heck, if done right it probably has better odds than diplomacy.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes, I think people harp on the grammatical incorrectness of "war on terror" too much in order to avoid the issue: Obviously, this is primarily a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Or more broadly, a war against people who use terrorism against us. It also includes a local law enforcement component, of course (most visible at the airport). "War on terror", while grammatically incorrect is still easier to say in a soundbyte, but I doubt anyone is actually confused about what it means, despite the protests the phrase gets. 'Task which has the goal of keeping us safe from terrorism' just doesn't have as nice a ring to it.

Either way, Proton and lisa - if you didn't know for the past 9 years what it meant, now you do: So do you have an answer?

And by the way, if you've been confused about what the war on drugs, war on crime and war on poverty are about for the past 20 years, I can explain those to you too - probably best to start a new thread for them, though. Of course, they may be more difficult to get straight, as none include any actual war component at all.

i can't recall the last time we were attacked by the Taliban. and they've had plenty of opportunity to slip over either border, as both are wide open.

 

[apeiron]

All I am saying is give war a chance. Heck, if done right it probably has better odds than diplomacy.

I'm guessing this is an attempt to be witty. How many people have died, how much has been destroyed, how much has been spent in a decade of the US war on terror? Please quantify what you consider to be a "reasonable chance".

 

[skippy1729]

Terrorism is a tactic. I don't understand how we can go to war on a tactic.

Maybe that's just semantics.

It is commonly called terrorism instead of war with, for example, Islamic Fascists, since most people are afraid of being being labeled as religious bigots.

Whatever you choose to call it, it is the third greatest threat to Western Civilization. The first two being Political Correctness and Cell phones.

Skippy

 

[nismaratwork]

It is commonly called terrorism instead of war with, for example, Islamic Fascists, since most people are afraid of being being labeled as religious bigots.

Whatever you choose to call it, it is the third greatest threat to Western Civilization. The first two being Political Correctness and Cell phones.

Skippy

You really think that these nuts are that level of threat? Compared to the economy, China, Oil use vs. Production, India-Pakistan, and more? It's one of the most frighting, but that's because of the unpredictability, it is not such a great threat.

Lord we've come a long way from, "This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." (FDR)... and he was dealing with the greatest war in history.

 

[BobG]

You really think that these nuts are that level of threat? Compared to the economy, China, Oil use vs. Production, India-Pakistan, and more? It's one of the most frighting, but that's because of the unpredictability, it is not such a great threat.

Lord we've come a long way from, "This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." (FDR)... and he was dealing with the greatest war in history.

Actually, those words were from his first inaugaral address and he was dealing not with war, but with an economy even worse than ours.

But, yes even our own economy is a bigger threat to our way of living than terrorism or Islamic Facists.

 

[zomgwtf]

I fail to see why people are talking about Iraq on a thread about the war on terror. Iraq is a separate war from the war on terror, one declared by America and a few of its allies.

It really has nothing to do with what's going on regarding al'qaeda and the taliban.

To put it in simpler terms that I'm sure everyone will understand America is fighting war a AND war b, at the same time. Just because you don't agree with war b or whatever other arguments you have about war b says absolutely NOTHING about war a. Everything is different, the situation, the area, the enemy, the purpose, everything. Completely different.

My answer to the poll was yes, I definitely support the war on terrorism and anyone who doesn't I would call a fool and slap. If people in 3rd world nations being attacked by us can see that the war on terror is worthwhile and we're clueless about it I'd say there's something wrong with the education system in your area.

I also support the war in Iraq but that's a separate discussion as I already pointed out.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm guessing this is an attempt to be witty. How many people have died, how much has been destroyed, how much has been spent in a decade of the US war on terror? Please quantify what you consider to be a "reasonable chance".

And you say it's not worthwhile meanwhile those that are getting destroyed etc. say it is? What's wrong here?

 

[mheslep]

I fail to see why people are talking about Iraq on a thread about the war on terror. Iraq is a separate war from the war on terror, one declared by America and a few of its allies.

It really has nothing to do with what's going on regarding al'qaeda and the taliban.

To put it in simpler terms that I'm sure everyone will understand America is fighting war a AND war b, at the same time.

I'd change the above to was fighting. Now for the US there's essentially only war a, Afhganistan. Yes there are still 50k US troops in Iraq for another ~12 months, but then there are ~30k US troops in Korea and we don't say they're in a war there.

 

[inflector]

No one disputes that terrorism has to be dealt with. The only question is what is effective.

And what is actually counterproductive.

No one considers the opportunity costs involved either. What else might we have done with $1 trillion plus that might also have been applied toward reducing worldwide terrorism or saving lives in other ways.

That terrorism is used as a tactic is an effect. It has causes. It it a tactic that has been used by outmatched combatants since the beginning of time.

There are other more effective tactics. In general, for example, against Western governments the tactic of nonviolent protest has been effective. It worked against the U.S. in the case of civil rights, it worked against England for India. It would work for the Palestinians if they ever tried it, I am confident.

Even though terrorism is a poor tactic, there are reasons why individuals and groups resort to terrorism. Until we understand those reasons, our wars against terrorism are counterproductive at best. Invading other countries and killing civilians on a regular basis (which is an inevitable effect of war) does not help reduce the number of those who want revenge.

The people in these countries are not our enemies. I've spent a lot of time in various parts of the world, South America and some in muslim countries in S.E. Asia. Everyone else knows a lot more about U.S. politics than the typical U.S. citizen does. This is appalling. Most of us citizens have no idea what our government has been doing for the last 60 plus years since WWII when we were the clear good guys. The rest of the world knows.

We've deposed democratically elected presidents (in many cases actually had them assassinated) invaded countless small countries, funded and supplied training and arms to right-wing militatary groups that have been incredibly despotic (including in many cases imprisoning as "terrorists" any groups that were against the government or that spoke openly against it) in literally scores of countries. In short, we have not acted without reproach on the world stage.

I don't buy the two rights don't make a wrong argument in its entirety. Yes, killing innocent people is not justified. But we're physicists (and wannabes) here right? Surely we can understand cause and effect. Push here that happens, push another place something else happens. Actions have consequences. If you follow the causal chains you can see pretty clearly that there is much we can do to improve terrorism that does not involve war.

One clear example is Pakistan. We've spent how much supplying arms and money to the military there over the last 10 years? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305476.html" . Yet when they have an unprecedented natural disaster we offer aid of what? $150 million.

The people of Pakistan really don't care much one way or another if they get $18 billion in aid to the military, I can assure you. If we spent 1/10th that amount on aid for the flooding there we might actually prevent some future terrorists. We've spent more than 100 times supporting the Pakistan military than we've offered in aid for the flooding disaster which the UN has described as the unprecedented. What does that tell the Pakistanis and muslims in general about U.S. priorities?

We never learned our lesson in Viet Nam or Iran. The Shah of Iran was a despot. The U.S. backed government in Viet Nam was despotic and corrupt. Yet we sided with these despots and supplied them with arms and military training and then didn't understand why their people considered the U.S. an enemy.

Currently, we have as an "ally," the government of Saudi Arabia. A small family that keeps most of the oil wealth to themselves. Saudi money funded the Wahabbi schools in Nothern Pakistan and Afghanistan. Perhaps if we stopped having despots as friends in the developing world, we might find that less people think America is Satan.

Cause and effect guys. Surely scientists should understand this?

If we want to prevent the future loss of American lives, what I want to know is why we don't have a war against cars. Do you know how many Americans are killed by cars every year? Last year it was over 33,000 and that was considered a low figure. Seriously, if we spent $1 trillion making our transportation safer, we could potentially save far more lives than were lost in 9/11 every quarter in the U.S. alone, and we won't have to lose any more lives in the war itself as the unsafe cars won't shoot back.

 

[rootX]

My answer to the poll was yes, I definitely support the war on terrorism and anyone who doesn't I would call a fool and slap. If people in 3rd world nations being attacked by us can see that the war on terror is worthwhile and we're clueless about it I'd say there's something wrong with the education system in your area.

 

[rootX]

I couldn't pick pick yes/no when there is no simple yes/no answer.

"War of Terrorism" was a result of 9/11 and they acted very fast without thinking much. It was required but could have been dealt more efficiently.

 

[Hurkyl]

How many people have died, how much has been destroyed, how much has been spent in a decade of the US war on terror?

Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to judge. One also needs to know things like what goals have been attained or are likely to be attained in the future... and a good estimate of the comparable information for the alternatives.

But I'll assume you knew that, and were just trying to add color, for better or worse.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
If you follow the causal chains you can see pretty clearly that there is much we can do to improve terrorism that does not involve war.

One clear example is Pakistan. We've spent how much supplying arms and money to the military there over the last 10 years? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305476.html" . Yet when they have an unprecedented natural disaster we offer aid of what? $150 million. [...]

When making this kind of argument, that there's much that can be done but somehow the current political authority has missed or fails to see the wisdom for, it is easy to appear naive, so I suggest care is warranted when bringing forth the One clear example of what is wrong. Yet the numbers above are grossly wrong and misleading when compared as they are.

• The $18B, ten year, figure above includes, as the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305476.html" source states, "civilian and military aid".
• Before Sept 11, 2001, the US had cut off all military sales to Pakistan. I don't like the idea of arms sales to Pakistan now. But, given a corrupt government that was actively encouraging the Taliban in Afghanistan (if not outright inventing it), and if one indeed wants to have Pakistan police itself rather than forcing yet another invasion of "countless small countries" then, assuming arms sales buy some Pakistani cooperation, I at least stand waiting for better ideas to influence the Pakistani government before calling for another halt.
• The actual flood aid alone is about http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52906", for this one year, including in-kind military aid (airlift, etc), and in Pakistan is the largest flood aid donor in the world, as the US usually is worldwide disasters, in addition to providing the overwhelming share of airlift for these disasters in hard to reach places. Note that it is nearly always and everywhere in the the developing world difficult to effectively distribute civilian aid to those who actually need it, and here the WaPo source makes that especially clear for the case of Pakistan, especially with a local government impeding the effort either through incompetence or malice.
• The Kerry-Lugar act of 2009 authorizes $7.5B of non-military aid to Pakistan over several years. This bill apparently takes some pains to monitor and certify where the money goes, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2009/1014/p90s01-wosc.html"

 

[Alfi]

It should not be a 'war' on terror.

I think it should be a 'Police Action' against terror criminals.
Many Nations, United, against the same type of crimes, should be called ..ummm
The United Nations.
No borders! This type of crime should have a Police force able to go anywhere to seek out the criminals and bring them to justice.

 

[inflector]

Yet the numbers above are grossly wrong and misleading when compared as they are.

Thanks for the clarifications. I shouldn't trust a brief search in google for these sorts of things. Nor newspaper articles.

I am not, in general, a big fan of foreign aid as it has been traditionally doled out. It tends to go for large projects with a huge slice going to graft and most of the rest getting paid out to U.S. companies doing the large projects. That's the reason that as the article you cited about the Kerry-Lugar act said: the average Pakistani is not confident that they will see any benefit from the proposed aid.

In the case of the flood, the answer is not to simply use bigger numbers, i.e. offer $1 billion instead of $400 million or whatever it is. For disasters of this sort, we really ought to have the ability to respond quickly. We can handle the logistics for two foreign wars, we know how to move a lot of materials quickly. We don't have the equivalent of a large-scale disaster response group modeled and organized logistically like the army. We don't spend near as much on the tools and equipment needed to respond to disasters like these (whether they happen in Pakistan or New Orleans). It simply has not been a priority.

Just throwing money at the problem when disaster strikes is not as effective as having a long-term plan and an ability to execute on that plan. I think that disaster response is an obvious win. We are the richest country in the world. We should be able to respond in a big way to help out when a relatively poor country suffers a disaster.

If we were able to come to the aid of Pakistan with the logistical equivalent of a carrier battle group, for example, or in the past with Indonesia and SE Asia after the tsunami, we'd change our perception in the world. As it is, we pitch in a bit and help out a bit, but we are not serious about it. Not serious about it on the same scale as we are serious about our military.

I'm not saying that we're not doing quite a bit in Pakistan, I just think that if we had other responses that were within just one order of magnitude of what we spend on war and preparations for war, this would help defuse the root causes of terrorism. We spend a lot of money on curing symptoms and not enough on fighting and preventing the disease.

That, and we should stop selling arms to despotic regimes and calling them allies no matter what their form.

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to judge. One also needs to know things like what goals have been attained or are likely to be attained in the future... and a good estimate of the comparable information for the alternatives.

But I'll assume you knew that, and were just trying to add color, for better or worse.

If one wanted to, they could lay out the goals that were to be achieved in most wars in history; the initial grievences, and the mission statement.

For this "war", do you think that's possible in a way that distinguishes it from what it appears (to me) to be, which is a policy of disrupting networks, and a major intelligence struggle? How can we estimate what's to be attained in the future when the entire concept of a "war on terror" is fatuous to begin with?! What we have is a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and a paramilitary and intelligence struggle against (mostly) extremists who claim they commit atrocities in the name of islam.

So, in WWII we wanted to end the German invasion of Europe, halt Italian ambitions, and defend ourselves and attack Japan for its role in the Axis powers. What's the deal here, because if you take elements of the wars in the two aforementioned nations out of the deal, then where's the war occurring?

No reasonable person could answer this poll because it addresses a phrase used as propaganda, nothing more. Break it down, into post 9-11 actions, and then yes...along these lines:

Was it necessary and/or useful to neutralize Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and did that require boots on the ground? My answer: Yes.
Was it necessary and/or useful to go to war in Iraq: my answer: No, it is completely unrelated.
Is the policy of drone strikes proving useful as a means to kill leaders of terrorist organizations, even when they occur within Pakistani border? My answer: Yes.
and so forth...

The problem with "the war on terror", is that you'd be lucky to get agreement or understanding of WHAT that is. Without dealing in a given specific action or issue, this is a meaningless debate.

 

[apeiron]

Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to judge. One also needs to know things like what goals have been attained or are likely to be attained in the future... and a good estimate of the comparable information for the alternatives.

But I'll assume you knew that, and were just trying to add color, for better or worse.

I was responding to a simple "aw shucks" comment - give war a chance to work - so yes, there is plenty more that could be said.

Isn't the key mistake of the war on terror that instead of a surgical focus on the actual legitimate target - Al Qaeda - it became a messy, unnecessary, battle against the Taliban?

If Afghanistan was left to produce its own regime in control, no matter how despotic, then the usual international policing/intelligence/bribery/arm-twisting could be used to contain and eradicate any threat Al Qaeda actually posed. And with all the extra money to be spent on homeland security, how much threat of repeat attacks were there?

War just makes a mess that still has to be cleaned up. In the context of containing/eliminating a small group of terrorists, forcing an intact regime to police their territory seems commonsense.

So maybe the US high command wanted to send messages to other countries in the region. Maybe securing pipelines from the Caspian sea was a strategic imperative. Or maybe it was just a case of a dumb hick "aw shucks" let's give war a go mentality. When you are in control of half the world's military expenditure, maybe it is just too hard letting it sit there not doing anything. You got to get the toys out and play.