EXPANDED ROLE

Recent Events Could Signal Increased Use Of U.S. Military In Colombia's
Civil War

While few people like being told, "we told you so," most of us secretly
enjoy being able to say it from time to time. It's sort of a vindication of
our beliefs and principles. And so it is with our take on the drug war in
Colombia.

For decades the government of Colombia has been at war with leftist
guerillas. In recent years those insurgents have financed their operations
by providing security for drug traffickers. This has created a bit of a
problem for successive U.S. administrations as past policy has forbidden
the use of aid and equipment in Colombia's long- running civil war.
However, the line between the drug war and the civil war is blurry and
ill-defined. This is one of the reasons we've cautioned against becoming
too involved in drug interdiction efforts in Colombia. Americans who came
of age in the 1960s and before remember how easy it is to get sucked into a
civil war in a far-off land. Now it appears our concerns might become reality.

In the aftermath of the attacks last September the U.S. government has,
understandably, been focused on fighting terrorism here and abroad. Part of
that fight has been identifying groups around the world that threaten our
security and should be labeled as terrorist organizations. The leftist
insurgents in Colombia have been put into that category.

Now that the guerillas are terrorists, some U.S. policy makers see no
problem with helping the Colombian government fight them. Some of the $28.9
billion antiterrorism package approved by Congress and awaiting President
Bush's signature is earmarked for Colombia. Unlike past appropriations,
however, that aid doesn't come with so many strings attached.

Congress loosened the rules that restricted military aid to drug war-
related operations, opening the door to increased use of military hardware
and personnel in Colombia's civil war. Our leaders in Washington must
remember that aside from the drug war and its dubious effectiveness, the
United States has no stake in Colombia that we must protect with our military.

Also troubling are comments made by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James T. Hill. In a
confirmation hearing before a Senate panel July 26, Hill, the nominee to
head the military's Southern Command, told the senators, "It would be a
terrible loss if democracy failed in Colombia." He also indicated that he
supports increased military aid for Colombia to fight terrorism. Whoa, big
fella. That sounds a bit too much like he would be willing to commit U.S.
forces in Colombia's civil war.

Our leaders must not use last year's attacks on the United States to lump
every military venture into the war on terrorism.

It's also important to realize that although we have the most powerful
military in the world, our resources are not infinite. We must chose our
battles wisely to get the most protection for our citizens for the money we
spend. After all, that's why we have our military forces - to safeguard the
lives of Americans.

In the war on terror Americans are facing an enemy who has stated his
intent to harm our country. Let's not lose sight of that enemy in a
misguided attempt to affect the outcome of a war that doesn't concern us.