A promise unfulfilled.

Byline: The Register-Guard

As President Bush has spent weeks pondering U.S. military options in Liberia, the situation in the small west African nation has become ever more urgent and deadly.

The president should stop analyzing and fulfill the promise he made during his tour of Africa earlier this month: that his administration will help restore order in Liberia, a country with strong historical ties to the United States.

Bush has dispatched a military team to analyze the situation, and about a hundred Marines are now on the ground in the capital of Monrovia, protecting the U.S. Embassy.

Sensing correctly that the U.S. president is waffling on his promise, Liberian rebels have broken a cease-fire and launched a bloody offensive that has claimed dozens, perhaps hundreds, of lives.

Liberians, who only weeks ago gathered at the U.S. Embassy to cheer prospects of U.S. intervention, stacked bodies of their fellow citizens in front of the same building this week. Protesters demanded to know why the Bush administration has not sent troops.

West African nations, including Nigeria, Mali and Ghana, are prepared to send the bulk of a peacekeeping force to Liberia, and, along with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have asked the United States to contribute up to 2,000 troops to coordinate the mission. Great Britain and France also have indicated a willingness to participate.

The president must make the tough decision to make this modest commitment of U.S. troops. Standing by and doing nothing as Liberians die from fighting, starvation and disease is no longer a viable nor a moral option.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration have made no secret of their opposition to U.S. intervention. They argue that there are few strategic or security interests for the United States in Liberia, and point out that the U.S. military is already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Their arguments are not without substance. But there are compelling moral and humanitarian reasons why the United States should involve itself in a country that was founded by freed American slaves in 1847 and, before warlord Charles Taylor tore apart the nation, had a government modeled on the U.S. Constitution. Unlike some other deployments, U.S. troops are actually wanted in Liberia - by citizens and neighboring nations alike.

There also are substantial strategic interests. The civil war in Liberia threatens to destabilize much of West Africa, and as long as Taylor remains in power there is a risk that the region could spiral into a chaotic jumble of failed states that could become a spawning ground for terrorists.

Bush has said he won't send troops until Taylor steps aside, while Taylor has said he won't leave until U.S. troops arrive. That shouldn't be a sticking point, especially since Taylor and his ragtag forces would be no match for U.N. peacekeepers if he goes back on his word.

Every day the president delays deploying U.S. troops will make the situation more treacherous in Liberia. Bush should do what presidents are elected and paid to do - make hard decisions - and commit to putting U.S. boots on the ground in Liberia as quickly as possible as part of an international peacekeeping force.