Still on the middle east thing

So, there was an interesting editorial in the Post But I gotta say, I don't completely buy it.

Reading my yesterday spot, you can see,I'm not a fan of the US middle east policy. Nor am I a fan of just ending the war. But claiming that Isreal has no culpability in how they're carrying out their response . . .?

But that's the conundrum of modern warfare. The US government cannot condemn Isreal's approach, because it is the same as the US has undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Go in with massive superior fire power, hope that you eradicate the enemy or leave them paralysed with fear, and then go home.

Except the fight isn't with governments anymore. Terrorists cannot wave the white flag. There is no way to end a war on terrorists. Let's consider: if the terrorists (Hezbollah or Al Quaeda or even the SLA) were to enter into a truce (the normal way to end a war) - who would they be speaking for? Who is it that could be held to the terms of the treaty? And wouldn't the other country be conferring on it the authority of a government if it agreed to a surrender?

Let's say they broke the treaty. What is the repercussion? Who pays?

War with terrorists should not be fought with the army, they should be fought with the police. Extremely well trained and well-armed police, but it's not for the army.

Or, I suppose, it should be fought with assassins. The US won the revolutionary war (with help from France and Spain), by adopting the tactics of the Indians who had been beating them. I suppose there's a bit of "fire to stop a fire" that may need to happen.