The day before the "new age of terror" began, an Australian prime minister had his first face-to-face meeting with an American president and established the rapport that underpinned this country's involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
John Howard was the veteran, almost at the halfway mark of his 12-year prime ministership. George W. Bush was the novice, in the first year of what was to be a two-term presidency. Both were conservatives; they shared a world view and had the capacity for self-deprecation. They clicked.
Theirs was a bond forged by the horror of 9/11 and their proximity to it. Howard's loyalty to Bush was unflinching from the moment he pulled open the curtains in his room in the Willard Hotel and saw smoke billowing from the Pentagon.
This week, it was a veteran president who had his first meeting with a newbie PM: two small-l liberals with a natural charm and an elegant turn of phrase. Once again, the backdrop was an act of barbarism executed in the name of Islam. 
Malcolm Turnbull was in Berlin when the terrorists struck, and found inspiration in the response of French men and women who, walking from a stadium where bombs had exploded, were singing their national anthem. "It just showed the fact that free societies like our own, like Australia's, like France's, will not be cowed by terrorism," he told the ABC.
The difference at their meeting, aside from the greater complexity of the challenge the world now confronts, is that Barack Obama and Turnbull had the benefit of learning from their predecessors' mistakes, and the knowledge that military force alone is not the answer.
It is reflected in their willingness to embrace pragmatism and political compromise to meet the threat of Islamic State in Syria, and in the shared emphasis on engaging with Muslims at home to, in Obama's words, "ensure that they feel fully a part of American and Australian democracy".
Less than five months ago, Turnbull had the luxury of being able to offer opinions on the threat posed by Islamic State, or Da'esh, without the authority or responsibility of membership of the national security committee in Tony Abbott's cabinet.
"Tough policies can be popular, they may even be justified at the time they are conceived, but they can still be a mistake," he told the Sydney Institute.
"I suppose there is nothing tougher than invading a country, overthrowing its government and occupying its territory, but with the benefit of hindsight few today contend that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, popular with the US public and the Congress at the time, was not a tragic error."
Back then, Turnbull spoke in the abstract about the need to strike the right balance between protecting security and liberty, asserting that this would be more likely if there was a "thoughtful and well-informed public debate". "Just as it is important not to underestimate, or be complacent about, the national security threat from Da'esh, it is equally important not to overestimate that threat."
Now he is PM, offering measured reassurance that Australia is well-placed to meet the terrorism challenge as "the most successful multicultural nation in the world", with "strong and capable security services". But the challenges are immense.
In the wake of the slaughter in Paris, cohesion at home has been and will be tested on multiple fronts. Among the first questions raised was whether the plan to resettle 12,000 Syrians should be suspended and whether more screening is needed to ensure no terrorists are among them.
Turnbull responded by pointing out the difference between mass border crossings in Europe and the comprehensive screening of the fortunate few who will be resettled in Australia. "While there have been some exceptions, the history of terrorist activities in Australia . . . is very much, for the most part, second and third-generation Australians," he added.
More troubling was the signal from former immigration minister Scott Morrison that the composition of the intake was being reviewed, with the Christian component set to increase. Why, when the initial assurance was that selection would be non-discriminatory when it comes to religion?
So far, the willingness of a few to play to fear and prejudice has not tempered the welcome afforded to the first family of Syrians to arrive. Perth's Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre, the agency responsible for helping the new arrivals, has been overwhelmed with offers of support.
Then there is the Grand Mufti, who has been savaged by a swag of commentators over his response to the attacks. Andrew Bolt complained that his statement "read like a warning to submit or die". Miranda Devine said he offered only "a cursory condolence", but then effectively "justified the unjustifiable". Janet Albrechtsen asked: "Whose side is the Grand Mufti on?"
So what did Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed actually say? His first Facebook post came on Saturday, soon after the news of what he called the "heinous" attacks, and began: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, families and people of Paris and Beirut at this time of unspeakable horror."
His media statement on Monday expressed the very same sentiment, reiterating "that the sanctity of human life is guaranteed in Islam", but then unwisely, clumsily, prematurely and provocatively strayed into the more dangerous terrain of "causative factors".
"These recent incidents highlight the fact that current strategies to deal with the threat of terrorism are not working. It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed," he said.
This led to the baseless accusation that the mufti had stubbornly refused to condemn the Paris attacks, and a "See no evil" front page of Sydney's Daily Telegraph depicting the Grand Mufti as the three wise monkeys with the captions: "Sees no problem, Hears no concerns, Speaks no English".
A clarifying statement from the Grand Mufti said it was incorrect to imply the reference to "causative factors" provided justification for the attacks and recalled his statement last year describing Islamic State as criminals "committing crimes against humanity and sins against God".
Yes, there is a debate to be had about who speaks for Australian Muslims and the role of religion in Islamic State's medieval ideology, but articulate Muslims are unlikely to participate in it if they feel under siege.
As for the Prime Minister, having performed well on his first major overseas trip and reminded G20 leaders of the dangers of demonising Muslim communities, he now needs to set the tone for the debate at home.
Moreover, having begun a new friendship with the free world's most powerful figure, the challenge for Turnbull is to ensure that this partnership is ultimately more effective in countering the threat of terrorism than was the one between Howard and Bush.