WIDENING OF WAR IS A NEW DANGER

Will U.S. Again Start Propping Up Repressive Regimes?

American troops now are engaged in their toughest fight of the Afghan war.

Though American and Allied forces are expected to prevail over the fierce
but outmanned Al-Qaida and Taliban troops, a victory in the mountains near
Gardez won't mean the war is over. Pockets of Al-Qaida and Taliban
resistors exist throughout Afghanistan, which is why Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld's says more such Allied operations will be needed.

Fair enough. In the United States, public support for rooting out the
remnants of the Afghan terrorist organizations remains strong. If
Afghanistan is to have any hope for a secure future, and if the country's
status as a nesting point for terrorism is to be changed, further battles
will need to be fought.

That aside there are growing and well-founded concerns among many Democrats
and some Republicans about the Bush administration's expanding approach to
dealing with the terrorism threat.

With each day comes word of new American involvement -- American military
advisers to the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, a proposal to provide
military assistance to Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Nepal and
other countries, and even increased American military support for the
Colombian government's battle against drug warlords in that country.

In the zeal of fighting terrorists, will the United States again find
itself propping up "friendly" governments that with U.S. help become
repressive and less free? Under the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend
approach, will the United States again find itself siding with regimes that
otherwise would be unworthy? By spreading the fight too far, will the
United States spread it too thin, taking away from what needs to be
completed in Afghanistan?

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and others think asking these
questions borders on the unpatriotic. But the country's been through a
similar debate before. We cannot forget that history.

In arguing for an expansion of U.S. efforts, a spokesman for the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency told the Los Angeles Times this week: "All
these programs were predicated on the idea that if we get together, U.S.
values will be transferred and U.S interests will be served. Right now, our
interest is in curbing terrorism."

Substitute the word "communism" for the word "terrorism" and you can see
the potential dangers of that thinking.

Maybe the administration's approach is necessary. But to accept it without
question, without a consideration of past mistakes, and without an
appreciation for the anti-American sentiments that are so strong in many
parts of the world, would not only be foolhardy; it would be unpatriotic.