From the man who called George Bush a near genius...

Ass Rocket has managed to enunciate the simplicity of anti-terrorist policy in terms so easy to understand that even a simple-minded, Harvard-trained, Minnesota litigator could comprehend it.

Anti-terror policy no doubt involves complexities at various points, but the fundamental principle, I think, is quite simple. There are two kinds of terrorists: live terrorists and dead ones. The basic object of anti-terror policy should be to turn the former into the latter. As long as that process is proceeding satisfactorily, it should continue. The time for a cease-fire, it seems to me, is when Hezbollah has more or less run out of live terrorists. I don't think that moment has yet arrived.

It is so simple and pure. Just kill them all. And, if you happen to be an innocent non-combatant caught in the crossfire, well, you were probably going to become one of those live terrorists anyway.

Of course, Butt-Missile was only adding to a post put up by his co-blogger Mirengoff who was wringing his hands over the Lebanese conditions for a cease-fire in the Levant. Never mind that Mirengoff, a Stanford-trained, Washington DC lawyer, steeps his arguments in pure bullshit.

They began the hostilities for the stated purpose of obtaining the release of its prisoners. The deal would not only enable them to accomplish this, but Israel would lose territory (Chebaa Farms) in the process.

Hezbollah did indeed start it. So far it looks like they're going to win it too, especially if the Israelis continue to bomb and kill non-combatants at a rate higher than the designated enemy.

The Chebaa Farms are not part of Israel. Israel captured that ground during the 1967 six-day war from Syria. In 1981 Israel annexed the Chebaa Farms area and, even though there is a UN resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, they have steadfastly refused to move. The Lebanese claim to the Chebaa Farms is based soley on the fact that it was worked by Lebanese farmers before the six-day war. The land appears on the Syrian side of the border on every map in existence. So, the Chebaa Farms actually belong to either Syria or Lebanon but one thing is certain: they don't belong to Israel.

The deal apparently contemplates that Hezbollah would disarm. But who would see to it that Hezbollah disarms and stay disarmed? The answer is the U.N. peacekeeping force and the Lebanese army. But the U.N. force has already proved unable and unwilling to do this

And, unmandated.

This is Mirengoff utilizing the heretofore undisclosed Ivy League law school practice of forming an opinion without research. Neither UNIFIL nor UNTSO are mandated to disarm anybody. It is the job of the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. A simple look at the UN mandates for those missions and Mirengoff might not have even made such a ridiculous suggestion.

Sorry, yes, he would have.

Interestingly, the UNIFIL mission was to have expired 31 July, 2006. It was expected that Lebanon would request the mission be extended but there were rumblings that in order to have an extension granted the UN would demand that the Lebanese army take over security in southern Lebanon. Coincidence? Sometimes the timing of events can tell a story all on its own.

During the current war, the Lebanese government pledged that its army will join forces with Hezbollah if Israel mounts a serious invasion.

Why is that so difficult to understand or accept? Or, is an armoured advance across your border something you would ignore?

Proponents of the deal might respond that, since Israel is not prepared to occupy Lebanon, it will have to rely on the Lebanese army eventually in any case. This may be true. But it doesn't need to give Hezbollah the face-saving prisoner swap that the terrorists started the hostilities to obtain, or to make more territorial concessions. And the best way to maximize the ability of the Lebanese army eventually to deal with Hezbollah is for Israel to crush Hezbollah in the south. Then there can be a cease fire.

There can be a cease-fire when there is nobody left to kill? Well, that's effective, if it can ever be pulled-off. Actually, Paul, I think the idea of a cease-fire is to prevent anymore killing at all. I know that's a tough one to swallow. After all, if there's anything a draft-deferred, Ivy League educated war-blogger hates, it's to suddenly have the killing stop.

I have a better idea. Why doesn't the US lend Israel an aircraft carrier, fly Ehud Olmert onto it in a flight-suit and codpiece, have a huge blue and white MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign hung strategically in front of CNN's cameras and Israel can do what the US did in Iraq by pretending it won.

One thing is certain: bombing Qana and killing so many civilians in a single raid doesn't give Israel the moral high-ground and it will only serve to inflame both the Lebanese population and Hezbollah.

Oh well, we can always entertain ourselves with the sharp legal minds of the Powertool gang. I can hardly wait for their version of Why We Fight.