Military

DATE=02/12/03

TYPE=U-S EDITORIAL DIGEST

TITLE=WEDNESDAY'S EDITORIALS

NUMBER=6-12819

BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: Conflict -- from a pending war with Iraq and a NATO rift, to new threats from Osama bin Laden -- are subjects U-S newspapers are discussing in today's editorials. Other commentaries deal with the civil war in Colombia and U-S relations with South Korea. Now, here with a sample is _____________ and today's U-S Editorial Digest.

TEXT: Osama bin Laden, leader of the al-Qaida terrorists was again threatening the U-S Tuesday if it wars against Iraq. Notes The San Francisco [California] Chronicle:

VOICE: Osama bin Laden's advice that Muslim Iraqis emulate al-Qaida fighters [and] use suicide attacks and urban warfare against American forces, might just be more of his terrorist campaign against the United States and Israel. [Left unanswered:] Are the Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam Hussein's secular regime working together, directly or indirectly, to promote terrorism?

TEXT: The New York Times essentially wonders whether we are paying attention to our most serious threat.

VOICE: The nation has been so focused on the Bush administration's plans for war with Iraq that the war against al-Qaida seemed to slip into the background. But the fear of terrorism was front and center again yesterday, as the F-B-I director warned Congress about al-Qaida cells inside this country and a new audio tape surfaced purporting to be Osama bin Laden urging Iraqis to undertake suicide missions against the United States.

All this occurred at a time when the national terrorism alert level was at the nervous-making code orange level and the government was issuing guidelines on how to gird the family home against chemical or biological warfare.

TEXT: Views from The New York Times.

A frustrated Des Moines [Iowa] Register suggests that: "All the focus on Saddam Hussein deflects attention from Osama bin Laden." While in North Carolina, The Fayetteville Observer was frustrated at the "vagueness" of the earlier terrorist warnings, and is glad to get specifics. Allentown's [Pennsylvania] Morning Call agrees that "Straight talk about being prepared helps [the] nation face [the] possible perils ahead."

As regards the growing rift among NATO over planning for Turkey's defense, and the wider question of war with Iraq, Kentucky's Louisville Courier-Journal growls:

VOICE: Europeans frequently paint themselves as the more mature partner in their relationship with the United States. Why is it, then, that these paragons of gravity and probity have allowed an alliance of enormous mutual value to plunge into an utterly avoidable crisis that needs nothing so much as a few adults to take charge?

TEXT: The Detroit Free Press strongly suggests that:

VOICE: The United Nations is the place for the international community to debate whether to war against Iraq." NATO is not."

TEXT: In Colorado, The Denver Post, calling the dispute "A scary crack in NATO unity," adds that "Turkey should not be left vulnerable because it got caught in diplomatic crossfire between its friends." "NATO fails Turkey" chimes in Wisconsin's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Reported, but not yet announced democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia are cheered by the Chicago Tribune.

The New York Times laments the "decidedly tense" relations between Washington and Seoul, suggesting it makes dealing with North Korea even more difficult. San Antonio's [Texas] Express-News laments the 30 dead and 150 injured in the Bogota, Colombia bombing last week as an indication that terrorism is not exclusively a Muslim device.

And in hopeful commentaries, The Memphis [Tennessee] Commercial Appeal and [Denver, Colorado's] Rocky Mountain News both cheer the resumption of U-S talks aimed at establishing a free trade agreement for all of the Americas.

On that positive note, we conclude this editorial sampling of Wednesday's U-S press.

NEB/ANG/RH