Recently, Iran has become more active in supporting terrorists, thinking we were too involved in Iraq and presidential politics to threaten them. Recent announcements about Iranian involvement in 9.11 seems to have given the Iranians some concern.

Actually uncovering plots is difficult. Reporting the news is costly. So the New York Times has figured out a new strategy for filling its front page by spinning old news into sinister conspiracies. The first example was Abu Ghraib, a crime that was duly reported when the military started investigating the charge in January.

If we are not winning the War on Terror, why are people like this surrendering?

One of the foundations of strategy is that we cannot create our own opportunities. Our opponents must create them for us. While this is a more complicated idea that it sounds at first, the presidential race gives us a new example (one of many that will come in the coming months). In a recent speech, Kerry promised to fight a "more sensitive war" against terror. When I first heard this, I knew that this statement was a great opening for the Republicans.

One fact that all the conspiracy theorists get correct is that the news media gets it wrong. People like Michael Moore know that by attacking the press, they can increase their own credibility because the press is so often wrong. However, our warrior's rules explain what happens in the real world much better than any conspiracy theory can, and the principles of strategy are incompatible with most conspiracy theories because strategy teaches that events cannot be controlled and actions by groups cannot be kept a secret.

For example, the recent story about