LA Times STILL using "resurgent Taliban" now 2 years out of date

Unbelievable. The LA Times not only continues to use the "resurgent Taliban" Narrative but states "For months, commanders in Afghanistan have been saying that more troops are needed to train the Afghan army (pictured) and thwart a resurgent Taliban."

Commanders in Afghanistan are callng the Taliban resurgent?

Here is an article I wrote about this last February.

Back then the LA Times made the claim the day after the senior American NATO Commander specificaly stated that the Taliban was NOT resurgent, that increased fighting was due to NATO expansion into new territories. The LA Times is STILL reporting the narrative from 2006 wich was accurate for a few months but is now completely false.

Update: In doing more research I found an article from The Age of Australia in which they quote Gen. McNeill having used the term resurgent himself in just the last few weeks. However, that doesn't mean they weren't wrong for the last two years. And a careful reading of the quote shows that his reference was to a very limited geographic area, describing them as regrouping in that area. Well, yeah, they are going to mass from time to time and that can be called a resurgence, but not in the way the media has presented this for so long. A resurgence as they use it would mean that the Taliban is getting stronger, which is false, and that they are somehow closer to achieving their political goal of taking over power. The Taliban is nowhere near that strength. They are going to be able to cause some havoc, but that is not the same as winning. We are still on a victory trajectory, they are still on a losing trajectory if you apply the least bit of critical reasoning to the situation.