If I had a brilliant solution, I would say so.

A method of warfare has been developed by radicals which makes it very difficult to respond in any effective way. Start by violating every last precept of the conventions of war, while the civilized nations have to adhere to them: Military facitilies in schools, churches, hospitals, and heavily populated areas. Combatants in civilian clothes. Ambulances or other marked aid vehicles transporting troops and weapons. Use of civilians as human shields. Deliberate targeting of non-combatant people and facilities in attacks. It's a very long list.

Then rely on a deeply anti-Western subculture in America and Europe to carry your public relations water for you.

"Victory" is defined as simple survival. If two cockroaches are left, the cockroaches "win."

The Viet Cong did this. So do radical Islamist groups.

And just how do you propose to eliminate all of Hamas Tom? Do you think that's some kind of attainable goal? From what I can tell they seem to be awfully interspersed with lots of innocent people. Do you just carpet bomb the areas they're in and let God sort it out?

Good point. See above.

You'll find nobody of any political persuasion that doesn't agree that criminals and terrorists should be brought to justice and suffer repercussions for their aberrant behavior but it sounds like police-type work to me not the stuff of military solutions.

Police methods are very effective in places like the U.S., Europe, or anywhere that the people in authority are opposed to the terrorists.

When the government, police or other local authorities sympathize with the criminals and terrorists, or actually ARE the criminals and terrorists, this concept breaks down completely.

It is almost impossible for a population to throw off terrorists themselves when there is no help, or even active opposition, from their country's authorities. Bowser has said that radicals can't survive without the support of the population. This isn't true. History is full of examples of very small numbers of people holding large populations in bondage, usually by brutal methods and fear. Terrorists don't need support from a population. They just need lack of opposition.

If you look back at that same history, when such regimes have fallen it has almost always been to an outside force. Barring that, they can go on for generations.

The way that seems to have been most effective in prying terrorists and insurgents loose from a population (as in Iraq) is to go in and pry them out one by one, house by house, while at the same time making more positive connections with the population than the terrorists can.

You win when the population, backed by security forces (either domestic or outside) begin to go after the terrorists themselves.

This approach will be harder for Hamas than it was for al Qaeda. Al Qaeda abused Iraqis in horrible ways, and it was not that hard to turn local leaders and populations against them. Hamas is ruthless, but also has a reputation for delivering services to the Palestinian people, using funds from many outside sources. It will not be easy to flip the Palestininans into an anti-Hamas position unless Hamas screws up very badly somehow. Also, if the Palestinians ever do vote someone else in, Hamas will simply destroy them as it did Fatah.

Have you noticed that this question is only addressed in terms of "what can Israel or the U.S. do to get rid of Hamas?" Try and imagine a scenario where troops from, say, Egypt, or some other (somewhat) moderate Muslim nation, came into Gaza and simply took the place over. It would be hard at first, but you can practically throw a rock across the Gaza strip, and enough troops could tie the place down in short order. With the support of an anti-terrorist authority in place, the population could free itself from the radicals.

I have mentioned this often, but it never sinks in: If it's all about poverty, squalor, and displacement, the Arab world could have solved the Palestinian problem years ago. One year's profits from Saudi Arabia could give every one of the Palestinians in Gaza almost a quarter of a million dollars. That there are "refugee camps" in Lebanon after 60 years tells me the Arab world likes things the way they are.

You're all over the board with your willingness to engage ourselves into everyone's squabbles and yet there's never any plan as to how it all ends. I really get the sense that for you and the rest of the hard core conservatives this is some final holy war before you're all swooped up in the rapture, a war you must fight to be viewed as worthy of your last great teleporter trip.

By the way, since you're so committed to kill off all of Hamas, have you encouraged your daughters to sign up for the military to go off and do that or are you still just happy to use other people's children?

This is just routine liberal boilerplate. You know very well I have no belief in the "Armageddon" theory, which seems to have created an entire industry from about four verses in the Bible.

As for my children, they will volunteer if they want to, and I would be very proud if they did, but neither my son or daughter has expressed an interest. My younger brother piloted C-5s during the first Gulf War.

It sticks in the craw of the Left that our troops are willing volunteers, hence their constant push for a draft. After seven years, the military population is becoming increasingly comprised of those who signed up or re-enlisted during war.

I don't "use" other people's children. Nobody "uses" children at all. These are men and women who have decided to serve their country, and have done so brilliantly.