The incomplete war on terror

The United States has long been respected around the world. Such respect wasn't solely out of fear for our massive army, but also out of admiration for our democratic values and international reputation.\nNow more than ever, as the United States fights a nondescript network of terrorists that could hide in any nation, having the respect of the international community is essential. Unfortunately, at the same time that we need this cooperation, we are taking actions that alienate our allies across the globe.\nAfter Sept. 11, it became clear that international cooperation would be pivotal for our future security. To that effect, nearly every nation offered its support for our potential efforts to stop the global menace of terror. \nSadly, a year and a half after our global war began, we are failing to follow through on our initial efforts and are taking other actions strongly opposed by the international community. \nAfghanistan is a prime example. The United States helped native Afghan factions topple the Taliban government in the latter part of 2001. This action was the right thing to do, but the Bush administration's handling of postwar Afghanistan has left the country vulnerable of again becoming a terrorist safe-haven.\nSpeaking on NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden, D- Del., said "Afghanistan is about to collapse." While the capital, Kabul, has been secured by U.S. and international security forces, the rest of Afghanistan is largely lawless, with President Bush refusing to expand the U.S. presence in the countryside. In a May 20 speech, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R- Neb., confirmed in Afghanistan, "Warlords and those who may sympathize with al Qaeda extremists still control much of the countryside."\nMany in the international community and in Afghanistan itself have been pleading for the United States to make a greater commitment to securing the entire country, not just the capital. Indeed, we would be naive to think terrorists would avoid the countryside just because the capital is secure. In a May 26 article, the Baltimore Sun reported that Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan, told the Security Council that the issue of security "casts a long shadow over the whole peace process and, indeed, over the whole future of Afghanistan."\nBut, just as Afghanistan faces the risk of sliding back into the hands of oppressive warlords who might be friendly to terrorists, the United States turned much of its attention, resources and military power to Iraq. In order to do this, we ignored international concern about this precedent-setting preemptive action.\nNow, after the invasion, instability is arising in Iraq. Protests and frequent skirmishes are not uncommon, and there is increasing discontent among the populace with the American presence. Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, but a concerted effort is necessary to ensure the country's stability. To that end, much of the international community (including many who opposed the war) offered to be involved in the reconstruction effort, but the Bush administration has declined, remaining on its near-unilateralist approach in the region.\nBy failing to provide for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are leaving the door open for situations to take hold that are even more dangerous than before Sept. 11. Furthermore, by alienating the international community, we are losing our ability to gather intelligence and work with others on fighting terror.\nIn prosecuting this vital war on terror, it is essential that President Bush commit to rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he do so in a manner that respects -- not ignores -- the international community.