It sure as hell stops some of them.

The deterrent effect of the idea that we can nail these guys driving alone in the middle of the desert in some other country without them even having a clue as to the source of the missile should not be overlooked.

Based on administration statements and actions, the rules for this war now appear as follows: The war itself will remain undeclared. The enemy has a name but no country. Efforts to get at the enemy could render national boundaries irrelevant. Assassination will be used as a weapon. Once targets are identified, we will attack them remotely if need be. Countries where Al Qaida hideouts exist may not be consulted before we attack. We may not wait until we know for sure that our targets are the right people. Pre-emptive strikes will be made to deal with threats.

The implications are clear: The Bush administration is adopting the terrorist's own rules of war. One must ask whether this war is important enough to warrant abandoning established principles of statehood and foreign policy.

Again, we are missing the main point in this article: while the tactics may seem similar, there is a huge difference in both motive and in the selection of victims. Or maybe you hadn't noticed that their side targets innocent men, women and children, while our side targets the murderers of same.

I have noticed that those wailing about how mean we are being to the poor terrorists by killing them on the spot rarely have any better ideas about how to bring these people to justice. The author is cordially invited to describe how he would have undertaken the arrest (preferably with Miranda rights) of those terrorists in the car in Yemen, never mind extraditing them out of the country in one piece. And what good would that have done? The author would then just start bitching about how badly we were treating them in their jail cells.

However, a critical question is: Can we win the war?

The answer to both questions is no! Abandoning the rules invites everybody to play without rules. Ignoring national boundaries gives others equal rights to do the same. Killing people without trial or proof of guilt invites anarchy. Using assassination is an invitation to political chaos.

Gosh. So the terrorists may suddenly stop using civilized warfare if we're not careful? Have you noticed that our opponents aren't playing by any rules whatsoever right now? And weren't to begin with? Hello? WTC?

The same rules apply to War on Terrorism as to all other wars. No real progress can be made until the fighting stops. Only then can we focus on the problems of repression, social, political and economic injustice, human rights abuses, and reactions to main-stream neglect that are the global breeding grounds for terrorism. Those problems exist in at least a third of all nations. If we do not recognize this situation soon and move with other nations and the United Nations system to deal with it, we are all doomed to perpetual conflict. Our best chances lie with dedicating many more aid resources to solving those problems and as quickly as possible shifting the fight against terrorism back to law, diplomacy and the justice system.

Sounds really good. Would play well with doves being released, and singing arm in arm. Actually, it sounds like he's advising buying the terrorists off. Number of times appeasement has worked on tyrants throughout human history = zero. An exercise for the student: you are sitting down in front of Osama bin Laden, and have forsworn violence. Please tell me what you could offer him that would make him decide that your nation and its infidels did not need to be obliterated and he could go home and farm goats.

The fighting only stops permanently in a war when one side or the other is defeated. At this point, maybe progress can be made. You will note that this has almost always been the pattern for any lasting peace between adversaries. Well, I prefer the losing side to be theirs, and want as unfair an advantage in numbers and weapons as is humanly possible.