Attacking the "axis of evil": with activity in Afghanistan winding down, the U.S. ponders targets from Africa to Asia. (International).

Nobody would have predicted that only six months after suicide attackers brought down the World Trade Center towers and set the Pentagon on fire, the U.S. would be ready to move on to Phase 2 in its war on terrorism.

But with the swift victory of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the war's next phase is starting now. Although administration officials haven't outlined the new strategy in detail, recent comments by President Bush, coupled with U.S. actions, suggest that the war on terrorism is going global and will be fought on two fronts.

One could involve direct confrontation with three nations President Bush has branded the "axis of evil"--Iran, North Korea, and especially Iraq, a longtime U.S. enemy (see "Is Iraq Next?" page 22). The U.S. charges that each of these nations is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction that might be handed over to terrorists.

The second front will pursue a shadowy network of Islamic fundamentalist groups linked by U.S. officials to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror network, through dozens of countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, and Yemen.

The new strategy marks a dramatic shift toward a more active U.S. foreign policy in the post-Sept. 11 world. "The focus has really changed," says Maya Chadda, a professor of political science at William Paterson University. "U.S. foreign policy has turned direction 180 degrees with the military as the spearhead to refashion the world and get rid of unfriendly regimes."

Months of debate in the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and Congress has shaped the new approach. The debate pitted hard-liners, who favor the wide use of U.S. power, against moderates, who prefer diplomatic pressure over force. The President's harsh words may mean hard-liners in the administration are winning the argument. Bush administration officials now say the U.S. is making plans to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein--although presidential aides say there are no plans for immediate action against Iran or North Korea.

WARNINGS ON "AXIS OF EVIL"

The get-tough faction's reasoning goes like this: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been working to develop weapons of mass destruction--an umbrella term for nuclear, biological, or chemical arms capable of inflicting huge casualties. All three nations actively support terrorist groups. Thus, the U.S. has no choice but to act, since any of the countries could provide terrorists with horrific weapons to use against U.S. targets.

"What happened on Sept. 11, as terrible as it was, is but a pale shadow of what will happen if terrorists use weapons of mass destruction," says Paul D. Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and a leader of the get-tough faction in the government. "Our approach has to aim at prevention and not merely punishment. We are at war."

But others inside and outside the administration worry that the aggressive tactics could backfire. They warn that blustery U.S. words may be setting expectations too high.

"You may be locking yourself into a situation where you have to start delivering on some very big promises," says Kenneth M. Pollack, director of Persian Gulf issues on the National Security Council staff under President Clinton.

They also fear that the new U.S. policy could weaken the international antiterror coalition assembled for the war in Afghanistan, while potentially setting off unpredictable events in countries where the U.S. takes action. Worldwide cooperation is needed to track possible terrorist cells. But the emerging U.S. strategy may alienate some coalition members. One television commentator in France, reflecting broad overseas criticism, said Bush's talk of an "axis of evil" sounded like "a sheriff convinced of his right to regulate the planet and impose punishment as he sees fit."

Some analysts also fear that the tough U.S. criticism of Iran may inadvertently boost the hard-line Islamic clerics who have ruled the country for much of the last two decades, while undercutting moderates who gained power in recent years.

In the case of North Korea, critics say the U.S. policy will undercut efforts by the South Korean government to negotiate better relations with North Korea, one of the last hard-line Communist dictatorships. With help from Chinese troops, North Korea fought a war against South Korean and United States troops in the early 1950s. Both countries maintain large armies at their common border.

THE OTHER HOT SPOTS 

How soon the U.S. will move against Iraq is unknown. But for now, the U.S. is focusing on the Al Qaeda network. The U.S. continues to pursue pockets of Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan while gearing up to go after Islamic fundamentalist fighters in a handful of countries in Africa and southern Asia.

The new policy's first test is in the Philippines, where 160 U.S. Special Forces soldiers began training Philippine troops last month to pursue the radical Islamic group Abu Sayyaf.

That group has been fighting unsuccessfully for several years to form a breakaway Islamic state in the southernmost islands of the Philippines, a predominantly Roman Catholic country. Though believed to be only 500 strong, Abu Sayyaf regularly kidnaps hostages for ransom and currently holds two Americans. They have killed several hostages over the years, and last June beheaded an American kidnap victim.

But the Philippines campaign also suggests the touchy political situations the U.S. could face in its efforts to help other nations hunt terrorists. The Philippine Constitution bars foreign troops from armed action in the islands. So U.S. soldiers accompanying the Philippine units in the hunt for Abu Sayyaf won't be allowed to fight, except in self-defense.

The American presence has also inspired some protests. The Philippines was a U.S. colony for more than 30 years at the beginning of the 20th century, following centuries of rule by Spain. "After our Senate ended more than 400 years of foreign military presence in the Philippines, we are now back to the worst kind of military intervention," says Jovito Salonga, a former president of the Philippine Senate. But with polls showing that 80 percent of the Philippine population supports the U.S. presence, it appears that, at least for now, the U.S. action won't face significant opposition.

ECHOES OF AFGHANISTAN

Also big on the U.S. radar: Somalia, the East African nation where 18 American soldiers died during a 1993 raid to assist a U.S.-led humanitarian effort. U.S. ships have been patrolling the Somali coast for at least two months to prevent any Al Qaeda fighters escaping from Afghanistan--including bin Laden himself--from taking refuge in the wild Somali countryside.

Somalia's troubles are legion. The government is so poor that it can't pay Parliament members. It doesn't even control all of Mogadishu, the capital, and rural areas are close to anarchy.

U.S. officials worry that Somalia could be a repeat of Afghanistan, where civil war and a weak government gave rise to radical Taliban leaders and their alliance with Al Qaeda. Somalia "looks a lot like Afghanistan did in 1995," says a top aide to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

American officials may be most fearful about Al Qaeda inroads in Indonesia, the fourth-largest nation in the world, where Washington has less influence than in either the Philippines or Somalia. The huge archipelago, home to the world's largest Muslim population, has thousands of square miles of remote islands. While up to now most Muslims in Indonesia have stuck with moderate religious views, separatist fighters on some islands have adopted a more strident fundamentalism.

When 13 men were recently arrested in a plot to blow up the American Embassy in nearby Singapore, authorities said the men were members of a clandestine organization associated with Al Qaeda cells in Indonesia.

But the U.S. may not get the kind of cooperation from Indonesia that it has received in the Philippines. Says one Western diplomat: "There is a lot of nervousness here that the opposition to a crackdown on Islamic groups could be 100 times more than in the Philippines."

But that's not likely to deter the U.S. In testimony before Congress, CIA Director George Tenet said that Al Qaeda remains the number one threat to U.S. security. Reports now suggest that in the final days of the U.S. bombardment of Afghanistan, many Al Qaeda fighters slipped out of the country. The U.S. is on the hunt for them. Says one senior U.S. military official: "Sooner or later, we will get them."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

lesson plan 3 * INTERNATIONAL * pages 18-23

Attacking the "Axis of Evil"

FOCUS: The Anti-Terrorism War May Extend Beyond Afghanistan to "Evil Axis" Countries

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the new strategy of the war against terrorism, specifically that the U.S. may expand the war into other countries identified as supporting terrorists.

Discussion Questions:

* How concerned are you that terrorists will strike again in the U.S.?

* Should the President and/or U.S. intelligence community be required to produce ironclad evidence of terrorist activity in other countries before launching attacks against them?

* Suppose many U.S. soldiers are killed in the Philippines. Should the U.S. stay the course, or abandon its anti-terrorist training there?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Before Reading: Tell students that in February, CIA Director George Tenet, testifying before Congress about terrorism, said: "We know that they will hurt us again. We have to minimize ... their ability to do so because there is no perfection in this business."

Discussion: Ask: Suppose Tenet's assessment is correct. Does that demonstrate that the "get-tough" side in the Bush administration should have their way?

Next, address the worry that an aggressive approach could erode coalition support for the anti-terror campaign. Why would American allies--note the French TV commentator, for example--dismiss the U.S. as a swaggering sheriff? (Ask if there is a natural inclination for people and countries to distrust the powerful.)

Debate: Ask students to suppose that President Bush goes forward with his get-tough approach and that the coalition that joined the fight in Afghanistan begins to splinter. Students can take sides on the critical question: Should the U.S. then go it alone, even striking suspected terrorists before they attack the U.S.? Does that recast the U.S. role in the world?

Role-play: Students may also role-play "diplomats in training." Their job is to put together a brief argument that U.S. diplomats abroad would use to help convince members of the anti-terror coalition to stick with the U.S. in the ongoing fight.

Web Watch: The Terrorism Research Center--www. terrorism.com/index.shtml--with offices in several countries, provides information on terrorist groups and counterterrorism operations.