Congress Presses Bush on Terror War
``What was originally supposed to be a war against
terrorist groups with global reach - ostensibly al-Qaida
- has now become a global war ... even against groups
that do not threaten or attack the United States,'' he
said.
Monday March 4 3:58 AM ET
By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - As the United States opens more
fronts in its war on terrorism, calls are increasing in
Congress for the Bush administration to better define
the new military missions - and give some idea how
long they might last.
The Republic of Georgia, the Philippines and Yemen
are just as messy and full of rival fighting factions as
Afghanistan (news - web sites), where no U.S. exit
strategy is in sight while Osama bin Laden (news - web
sites) remains elusive and his al-Qaida terrorists
regroup.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., faults
the administration for what he sees as lack of a clear
direction while expanding the anti-terrorism campaign
globally.
``We really don't know what the direction is, frankly.
We talk about going into Yemen. We're talking now
about going into the Philippines and other places,''
Daschle said on ``Fox News Sunday.''
``... Before we go into a lot of these other locations, I
think it is important for us to better understand what
our purpose is, how long will we be there, how many
troops will be there, how does it affect our efforts in
Afghanistan.''
Sen. John McCain (news), R-Ariz., said there should
be ``a lot more consultation with the Congress and the
American people as to exactly what our strategy is and
what our overall immediate objectives are. ...''
``I think there's been good consultation ... but now
we're embarking in other parts of the world in other
kinds of operations. And that new phase of this war on
terrorism, I think, needs to be explained, and I have
confidence that it will be,'' McCain added on CBS'
``Face the Nation.''
All of the recently announced U.S. military
commitments are limited to sending American troops
or advisers to train local forces to help those forces
hunt terrorists, officials note.
But all the commitments also are open-ended, in
potentially messy places with ethnic or regional
conflicts difficult to solve, critics say. They note that
administration officials themselves have said the goal
is to stabilize friendly countries as much as fight
al-Qaida terrorists.
Especially in Georgia, which wants U.S. help to both
fight Muslim extremists and limit Russia's influence,
``It seems the United States may once again be drawn
into somebody else's civil war,'' said Charles Pena, a
defense analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian
think tank that favors military restraint in general.
President Bush has warned from the
beginning that the U.S.-led global war on terrorism
will be long and hard, and that Afghanistan is just the
first battle.
Bush says he believes Americans are a patient people
and that ``wherever we find an al-Qaida presence we
will work with the (local) government to root them
out.''
But some administration officials worry that
Americans' interest or commitment could wane.
``Sometimes people act as if it's all gone away,'' Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in a speech two
weeks ago. ``I do fear the country has not absorbed
that the conflict is far from over.''
The administration's reluctance to use American
troops as peacekeepers in Afghanistan is a clear sign
of its desire to keep from getting bogged down there,
said Ivo Daalder, an analyst at the Brookings
Institution.
Yet, Pentagon officials have made
clear the 5,000 American troops now in Afghanistan
won't leave until the country is free of al-Qaida and
stable enough to keep terrorists at bay.
Even if bin Laden were found, the U.S. military has
pledged to stay to extract peacekeepers if they get in
trouble.
Beyond Afghanistan, the administration is pressing
ahead with military aid and training for several
friendly nations that face terrorist threats - sometimes
connected to al-Qaida, sometimes not.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said the goal is not necessarily to fight
al-Qaida but to help Georgia gain sufficient military
strength to defend itself - a circumstance that would
make it more secure and less likely to attract any
al-Qaida or other terrorist groups in the future.
The Pentagon is preparing to send troops to Yemen to
provide much the same type of anti-terror training
there.
In still other instances, the anti-terror help is not
related to al-Qaida at all. U.S. aid, for example, is
providing machine guns, helicopters and military
advisers to Colombia in its fight against
anti-government rebels and drug lords
The risk is that the United States will be forced, as in
Pakistan and India, into the middle of ``regional
quarrels and conflicts'' difficult to solve, said Anthony
Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington.
Pena of the Cato Institute calls the recent expansions
a formula ``for a costly war with no end in sight.''
``What was originally supposed to be a war against
terrorist groups with global reach - ostensibly al-Qaida
- has now become a global war ... even against groups
that do not threaten or attack the United States,'' he
said.
dailynews.yahoo.com |
