Too many places at once

President Bush needs to walk before he runs. As an inexperienced president, the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Bush enough confidence to look towards Iraq and the downfall of Saddam Hussein. As Bush once again sounds the trumpets of war, he and the rest of the world forget that Afghanistan's problems are far from over. While it is a worthwhile goal to remove Hussein and liberate the Iraqi civilians, we need to finish one conflict before racing towards another.\nUnfortunately, Bush does not see it this way. He has accepted the noble -- but impossible -- task of ridding the world of terrorism before his four-year term expires. However, if Bush neglects Afghanistan, it will once again fall into the hands of evil men. It happened after the Afghan-Soviet war, and history will repeat itself if the world leaves Afghanistan to its own devices.\nIn 2002, world powers donated only two-thirds of the promised $1.9 billion in relief funds, according to The Economist. Of that $1.2 billion, America contributed $297 million. The majority of this money went to humanitarian aid; only one-tenth went towards reconstruction projects. America may be the largest donor, however, one would think that if we can afford a $60 billion war on Iraq, we could afford to be a bit more generous when cleaning up the mess we helped create.\nThe New York Times reported on January 27, "The World Bank and other United Nations agencies estimate that it will cost roughly $15 billion over the next 10 years to rebuild Afghanistan." If war hungry countries each diverted a miniscule portion of their combat budgets into Afghanistan, $15 billion would barely dent their respective pocketbooks, and it wouldn't take anywhere near 10 years to amass the funds. With a flush treasury and some spending guidance, the Afghan government could afford to employ the two million repatriated refugees to undertake vital reconstruction projects.\nJanuary's The Economist stated, "Afghanistan has no economy to speak of. There is no effective banking system. The central government raises almost no revenue ... The country's valuable exports are either smuggled out (lapis, emeralds, artifacts) or illegal (opium)." This war-ravaged state obviously needs much more than funds marked "for food."\nHumanitarian aid is necessary, however we need to follow the adage "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Give a man a fishing pole, and he'll eat for a lifetime." After more than two decades of war, the country's infrastructure is practically nonexistent. Bombs destroyed roads, irrigation systems, farmland and factories long ago. Afghanistan will stay economically sterile, agriculturally barren and politically unstable until the infrastructure is rebuilt. \n Speaking of instability, we cannot forget that the fighting isn't over in Afghanistan. The Feb. 11 ambush on American Special Forces that claimed the lives of both rebel forces and Afghan civilians made that blatantly clear. Feuding warlords, remnants of the Taliban and members of the al Qaeda network are still obstacles to peace.\n It's poor form for America to move forward in this war when so much is still wrong in Afghanistan. If we attack Iraq we're going to be faced with rebuilding two countries simultaneously; a prospect that won't bode well with the moneylenders.\nIn short, Bush is biting off more than he can chew. As we move to each new "terrorist" country, we spread ourselves thinner and thinner, giving only a fraction of our attention to each dismantled state. Bush may be fueled with good intent, but we cannot realistically rebuild multiple countries simultaneously. Iraq must not come at the cost of Afghanistan.