The founder of international law, Grotius, would have had lots to say about this war.

Today we can distil six propositions substantially based on the historical concept of just war. First, war must be decided under the law – both for its justification, and by lawful authority that represents the democratic will. Secondly, war must be necessary – both as to the cause for it, and because all peaceful means to avoid it have failed. Thirdly, war must only involve proportionate force – both as to remedying the wrong that led to war, and as to the nature of the force used during it. Fourthly, war must involve the protection of the innocent by all available means – both as to the weaponry used, and in particular when the innocent are deliberately or recklessly exposed to danger by their own state. Fifthly, war must have good prospects of success – both as to military victory, and a military exit strategy. Sixthly, war must be followed by peaceful rehabilitation of the vanquished society – both as to the humanitarian needs of the people, and the re-establishment of a functioning democracy.

I wonder in what kind of situation Bush got himself trapped: to pretend the US is "at war" means there's another side; wars always mean there's another side that can be talked to, that can rise the white flag and surrender and then peace can come back.
But terrorists don't surrender, don't even want to live to profit from winning "a war". He's got himself into interesting contradictions.

Raoul