Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
A Times Editorial
The war against terrorism won't end in Afghanistan, but President Bush should resist pressure to expand our conventional military action prematurely.
© St. Petersburg Times, published December 2, 2001
The war in Afghanistan isn't over, and the job of rebuilding the country has barely begun. Nevertheless, President Bush already is being pressured to start dropping bombs on Iraq, Somalia, North Korea and/or other governments linked to terrorism.
From all accounts, the debate within the White House has intensified. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has firsthand experience in the complexities of conducting warfare, is the strongest voice for containing Iraq and other terrorist states in a systematic way that allows us to build on the coalition that has aided us in Afghanistan. "Iraq isn't going anywhere," Powell told the New York Times. "We'll continue to contain it. But there really was no need at this point, unless there really was quite a smoking gun, to put Iraq at the top of the list."
Yet some White House officials and neoconservative writers -- most of whom never performed military service -- are clamoring to widen the war. "With respect to what is sometimes characterized as taking out Saddam (Hussein)," Powell said, "I never saw a plan that was going to take him out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about let's go bomb."
All the armchair generals, especially those within the Bush administration, need to calm down and slow down. To succeed, the war against terrorism has to be global, but we can't effectively attack global terrorism all alone, or all at once. Any perception that the U.S. government is rushing to punish ideological adversaries or settle old scores could unravel the international coalition that has bolstered our efforts in Afghanistan. Unless we keep that coalition intact, we won't have the diplomatic, military and intelligence-gathering resources that will be required to reduce the threat of terrorism over time.
For now, U.S. attention should be focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan. Militarily, that means working with Afghan fighters to root out the remaining cells of Taliban and al-Qaida forces. Once that is accomplished, our goals won't be met until a stable government is in place that represents all major Afghan factions and commits itself to drying up terrorism within the country's borders. Last week's preliminary negotiations in Germany made progress, but the effort to bring together so many historic enemies in such a ravaged nation will be long and complex. The world will scarcely be safer if the demise of the Taliban leads to anarchic conditions in which terrorist groups can continue to operate.
Cleaning up Afghanistan obviously won't end the threat of global terrorism, but the Bush administration hasn't yet made the case for a wider conventional war. Most of the civilized world has supported our actions against the Taliban and al-Qaida because we were responding to an act of war for which those groups demonstrably bore responsibility. Justifying pre-emptive military action against Iraq, Somalia or some other government would be more problematic. Absent clear evidence that another government was directly implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks or is actively plotting a future attack, we would risk losing the support of governments and international groups whose cooperation will be crucial to the long-term battle against terrorism.
So far, President Bush's military response to the terrible events of Sept. 11 generally has been wise and proportionate. Those policies are on the verge of consolidating a remarkable success in Afghanistan. It is all but inevitable that the ongoing war against terrorism eventually will compel us to take comparable military action against another government or terrorist organization. But conventional military force can be only one element of a broader battle plan that also will engage our economic, diplomatic and intelligence-gathering resources. Expanding the war without proper planning or consultation could damage the broader alliance that so far has allowed us to succeed in a new kind of war against a different and more dangerous kind of enemy.