MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 12/19/2001: Warnings have already come, and in public, from all over. The Germans, the French, the U.N., there's already quite a long list. But the Americans are definitely planning to march forward on their crusade...there are many "phases" already not just planned but in various forms of execution. And the Israelis, working with and through their infamous Washington "lobby", are among the prime forces fanning the flames and helping plan the next "phases" of the all-purpose "anti-terrorism" Crusade they have preferred, and in many ways they have provoked, all along. So far in the gunsights: Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestine), the Phillippines, Indonesia, and even possibly Pakistan depending on just how much the regime there "cooperates" and whether in fact such regimes as those in Islamabad and Riyadh remain intact or, like Humpty Dumpty, crash into pieces and can never be put back together again.

Often regarded as the dean of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas began writing for United Press International during World War II. After leaving UPI last May, she began writing a political column twice weekly for Hearst Newspapers.

WASHINGTON -- Well, now that phase one of the war on terrorism is down to the mopping-up stage, what's next? Phase two?

To hear some of President Bush's hawkish advisers talk, it's on to Iraq. Or is it Somalia? Or Sudan? Or the Philippines?

Whatever. These advisers apparently don't want the world's only superpower to quit while it's ahead. Bush has warned the so-called "rogue states" that they are being watched "and will be held to account." He did not name them.

Some of his conservative retreads from the Cold War have regretted, ever since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the fact that the U.S.-led coalition failed to finish off Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 1991.

A key exception to this kind of thinking is Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired general who knows the horrors of war. He ran the gulf war in the Bush I administration and is essentially a man of peace in the tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Powell stands in stark contrast to some Pentagon officials who have spoken blithely of killing. For instance, the swaggering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this month, "We are there to capture or kill the al-Qaida and foreign invaders in Afghanistan who are terrorists."

He added that "we are there to change the Taliban leadership and change the government of Afghanistan." And he said he wants to "deal with" the Taliban, the former ruling regime ousted in the U.S.-led campaign, but wants to deal with al-Qaida "completely."

Whatever that meant, it sounded sinister. Then there were reports this week that U.S. military advisers in eastern Afghanistan had refused to let members of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's terror network, surrender to opposing Afghan forces. An Afghan leader who took part in the surrender negotiations said the U.S. team wanted to take no prisoners. "They just wanted to kill them," he said.

Such remarks made it look as if the Pentagon was bent on extermination.

Rumsfeld quickly backed off. In a briefing Thursday with Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he agreed with Myers' comment that "this is not a war of extermination" and denied that U.S. forces had scuttled a surrender offer.

Rumsfeld also said, "I personally would like to see people surrender. I personally would like to see us get our hands on them and be able to interrogate them and find out about the al-Qaida networks all across the globe." But the earlier threats were heard around the world. Pope John Paul II said that while it is right to defend oneself against terrorism, that "right must be exercised with respect for moral and legal limits." American leaders should listen to him.

Still, some administration officials are gearing up for another anti-terror war, urging the president to move swiftly from Kabul to Baghdad. The big push is coming from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who served in the department in the George H. W. Bush administration. He is joined by Richard Perle, an important outside adviser to Rumsfeld and himself a Pentagon official in the Ronald Reagan administration.

They note that Saddam Hussein has long sought to build weapons of mass destruction and stubbornly refuses to allow international inspection of his arsenal.

But evidence that Saddam actually could use such weapons is skimpy, and the United States still has no concrete case of terrorism against Iraq.

Without tangible provocation, Bush would be making a big mistake to start the new year by targeting Iraq or any other another nation. America should be returning to its traditional post-World War II role as a peacemaker and a healer.

So let's hope the president will resist the siren calls for new wars.

If he heeds those calls, moderate leaders in the Middle East -- that is, the few who are left -- will be the losers and the region will be even more radicalized against the United States.

Yet in a speech at The Citadel military academy in Charleston, S.C., last week the president again warned leaders of states that harbor terrorists. "The authors of mass murder must be defeated and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction." Bush said.

"Above all, we're acting to end the state sponsorship of terror," he declared. "Rogue states are clearly the most likely sources of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons for terrorists. Every nation now knows that we cannot accept ... states that harbor, finance, train or equip the agents of terror."

In fighting another hot war against Iraq, Bush might have to have to go it alone. Key allies such as Britain and France would probably desert him, and he would not have the support of the United Nations.

What then? A Pax Americana that we dictate? Whatever happened to collective security? Would the American people tolerate war without end?

Sure, a continuing conflict can kill a lot of potential terrorists, but can it wipe out hatred?

On Sept. 14, three days after the terrorist catastrophe, Congress adopted a resolution giving the president power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons (that) he determines" planned, authorized or committed acts of international terrorism.

In doing so, the lawmakers gave up most of their constitutional authority to play an important role in war and peace. And that was another sad day for the country.

"It's not a question of 'if' but of 'how' and 'when'," the official said after U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld briefed NATO defence ministers on Tuesday on Washington's war against terrorism.

"Anyone who rules out Somalia would be a fool," said the German official, who declined to be identified. There was no immediate comment from the United States.

Rumsfeld told reporters that Yemen and Sudan were known to harbour active al Qaeda cells and Somalia had hosted leaders of the network in the past.

He said the United States required no new authorisation from the U.N. Security Council to strike suspected terrorist targets outside Afghanistan, adding: "Every country has the right to self-defence."