An ever-expanding war.

Byline: The Register-Guard

WITHOUT consulting Congress and without any public discussion, the Bush administration continues to expand an already sprawling global military campaign against terrorism.

Last week, Pentagon officials announced that more than 1,000 U.S. troops, including 350 special operations soldiers, are being sent to take part in joint combat missions with Filipino forces against the militant Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines. Although Philippine officials have issued carefully worded denials, the Pentagon has confirmed that U.S. troops are moving from an advisory role to actual combat after what it describes as months of deliberations with Manila.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. forces have been deployed across the world, from Afghanistan to Yemen to Colombia to the former Soviet republic of Georgia to the Horn of Africa to the Philippines. That's not to mention, of course, the more than 100,000 U.S. troops who are massing in the Middle East for what appears to be an inevitable U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Other than broadly worded resolutions after Sept. 11 and, more recently, on Iraq that fell short of the formal declarations of war required under the Constitution, the Bush administration has not consulted with Congress on its steady expansion of its global counterterrorism efforts. Lawmakers have been kept informed on key developments, but their approval and input have clearly been deemed nonessential.

In his speech to Congress after Sept. 11, President Bush warned that the fight against terror would be both far-reaching and long-lasting, and that prophecy is being fulfilled. But it doesn't absolve the White House of its legal responsibility to consult with lawmakers before sending U.S. troops into harm's way.

With Iraq now on the front burner and likely to stay there for some time, the Bush administration should provide the American people with a full accounting of the war that is being waged in their name - and a sense of where that war may be headed. Members of Congress have every right to know the rationale behind military deployments, even those as relatively minor as the dispatch of 1,000 additional U.S. troops to the Philippines.

The White House should be prepared to address a variety of concerns, including the long-range costs of such military missions, their connections to the counterterrorism effort (U.S. officials claim that the Abu Sayyaf has had contacts over the past decade with the al-Qaeda terrorist group, but there is little evidence that the two are directly connected) and the increasing danger that U.S. forces and resources are being spread too thinly in light of a pending war with Iraq.

Nor is any military mission without risk of sudden and spiraling complications - and the U.S. mission in the Philippines is a case in point.

The Abu Sayyaf is a small and localized Muslim separatist group known for its brutality and kidnappings. The Philippine military, even with training and logistical help from U.S. advisors, has been unable to stamp it out, although its fighters number no more than an estimated 200. By dramatically expanding its military presence and its role in the Philippines, the United States runs a risk of being drawn into conflict with several much larger and potentially more dangerous groups, such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which has been linked to a series of deadly bombings in Manila.

History suggests that U.S. involvement in the Philippines should not be taken lightly. Almost exactly a century ago, the United States set out to crush a seemingly weak Muslim separatist movement in the southern Philippines. The result was a brutal guerrilla campaign that lasted years and cost the lives of thousands of Muslims and Americans.

Given the potential for political and military complications in the Philippines - and anywhere else that U.S. troops are sent into combat - the Bush administration owes Congress and the American public an open, candid explanation.