It's a fundamental mistake to wage a so called "traditional war" against terrorism.

For a number of reasons.

Wars are waged openly, with armies and what they do is most certainly 99.99% collateral damage and hardly any strike.

Wars are waged against states. The Bush administration took actions against states and made many more enemies that way, without reducing terrorism (quite the opposite, in fact).

Terrorists are acting discreetly, throughout the world, are even sometimes years before inside the very country they're going to terrorize.

In the current case, Al Qaeda is a terrorist network, spread worldwide and perhaps with less than a hundred operatives (in the beginning, before 9/11).
The way to fight it is by using an intelligence network, with people ready to infiltrate the terrorist network, somewhere on Earth.
Another way is by rapidly exchanging information between national police forces.

The big advantage of police action is its discretion and element of surprise. That way, it aims correctly AND with very little collateral damage.

Landmines, A10's, Bazookas, tanks are useless against terrorists and first hurt innocent people who happen to be in the way.
Those weapons affect the minds of those who witness the damage and can turn them into terrorists.
But discreet operations go unnoticed and catch terrorists off guard.

Will the current administration recognize this early enough?

We're heading towards uncertain months.

Raoul