WIDENING WAR

U.S. officials leaning toward unrestricted use of equipment in Colombia

While we hate to say "We told you so," it looks like we've been vindicated
in our forewarnings about escalating U.S. involvement in Colombia's civil
war - amid our ongoing drug war.

We long have argued there is a strong possibility that the line between the
two missions could easily be blurred and the United States could be drawn
deeper into the Colombian civil war. Supporters of U.S. aid to the South
American land have scoffed at that notion and pointed to restrictions
imposed by Congress on U.S. military hardware loaned to Colombia. Now,
however, there appears to be bipartisan support for loosening those
restrictions and allowing Colombia to have a free rein in its two-pronged war.

Colombian President Andres Pastrana was in Washington to meet with
government officials to push for more support in Colombia's ongoing civil
war. In addition to more financial aid, Pastrana lobbied to have Congress
drop its limits on helicopters and other hardware the United States
provides to Colombian armed forces to battle narcotics producers.
Currently, equipment supplied by the United States cannot be used against
strictly rebel targets in the decades-old insurrection. And that is where
things get confused.

The main insurrectionist group in Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia, or FARC, finances its rebellion partly with profits from the
drug trade, so it's difficult to determine whether a target is related to
the civil war or the drug war.

What changed since the restrictions were enacted during the Clinton
administration? The terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11. In
the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has determined that many
terrorist groups are financed with profits from the drug trade, thus
linking the war on terror with the war on drugs. Since Sept. 11, leftist
guerillas involved in the drug trade have become "narco-terrorists." That
makes it more difficult to question the drug war without being labeled as
unpatriotic.

Congress has responded as one might expect - leaders from both parties are
leaning toward approving President Bush's request to lift the restrictions
on Colombian aid. Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert told Pastrana,
"Terrorism is terrorism, whether it's narco-terrorism or terrorism against
a government." That expands on Bush's original emphasis on "international
terrorism," which implied the United States would stay out of others'
internal disputes.

Although often on the opposite side of political debates from Hastert,
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters, "My predisposition is to
be very supportive" of lifting the restrictions.

Bush joined in, saying after a meeting with Pastrana, "He fights terrorism
- - he fights well-organized, well-funded groups that are out to destroy
democracy in Colombia." While that is undoubtedly true, is it our
responsibility to fight that fight?