This guy needs to choose his words more carefully.
"Unconventional" does not automatically translate to "terrorist".
In a war, the guerrilla that snipes at an American soldier or launches a mortar attack at a U.S. base or fires an RPG at an American vehicle is not a "terrorist". Whether we like it or not, in a war, our soldiers are legitimate targets.
Likewise, in a war, whether the liberal news media likes it or not, the guerrillas are legitimate targets.
As long as they are in some sort of uniform and refrain from blowing up civilians for the sake of blowing up civilians, in a war, the guerillas have every right to try to seek out American soldiers and try to kill them in any way they can.
Likewise, we have every right to try to seek out the guerrillas and try to kill them in any way we can.
That's not "terrorism". That's war.
To equate unconventonal warfare with "terrorism" only hinders the American military from doing what needs to be done to kill the enemy that is trying to kill us.
If we wanted to engage in "terrorism" all we would need to do is to carry out B-52 strikes on Tikrit and another cities and town in the Sunni Triangle every time there was an attack upon an Amereican in Iraq.
*Maybe* but these terrorist scum kill unarmed people too. They explode car bombs in front of Iraqi police stations. Same terrorist scum kill Japanese aid workers. They are terrorist scum in my book, following in the footsteps of the terrorist founder of Islam.
"An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad explained the new plan of attack to Hersh: "The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla vs. guerrilla. Terrorism vs. terrorism." -- "This guy" you are referring to is not the writer of this article, Ralph Reiland. "The guy" is only identified as "an American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad". But I see your point.