I must respectfully disagree with David O'Brien's recent post, wherein he argued Barack Obama is wrong about sending more troops into Afghanistan to "widen" the conflict there. Although the goal of a peaceful world free of imperialism and war is laudable, O'Brien overlooks the threat posed to his pacifist utopia by al Qaeda and the Taliban.

No, these two malicious peas in a pod are not your friendly, neighborhood ice cream vendors. Yes, they do reside in the region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And yes, they actually do want to bring down the West and kill as many of us as they can.

The history of Western imperialism (or global chess, in the case of Soviet imperialism) may somehow explain the rise of the Taliban and bin Laden. But unless I have abandoned reason or misread the author's position, neither imperialism nor neglect justifies the wholesale civilian slaughter of 911 or the later bombings in Madrid, London, Indonesia and elsewhere — all planned and given the green light by global thugs hiding in the same rugged region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In truth, al Qaeda and the Taliban remain threats not only to the West, but also to Islamic nations including Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Benazir Bhutto was killed just this year.

No clever use of the phrase "cleaning up a mess" can obscure the necessity to root out and crush the deadly terrorist network that continues to plan ever more horrific acts of mass civilian death.

Who will conduct such an operation to defeat or destroy this terrorist network? Civilian authorities in Afghanistan? They cannot yet control the streets of Kandahar or afford adequate protection in Kabul to their own police, who too often are blown to bits by suicide bombers. Even President Karzai may not survive the next attempt on his life.

Will Pakistan complete the work for us by using its own military and police forces? If that were the case, we would probably not still be having this debate.

Every war in history has been littered with the bodies of civilian casualties. I, too, wish the world would beat its weapons into plowshares. But I am glad for the tens of millions of civilians saved that the West did no such thing in World War II. There have been a few "just" wars. Afghanistan is now one of them. And until al Qaeda and the Taliban take up agriculture, I will oppose the notion that we simply allow them to plan and execute mass civilian murders on an unthinkable scale.

We know from experience that al Qaeda specifically and intentionally targets civilians. Nothing could be more depraved, immoral or less pacifist than going after women and chidren to disintegrate them at the molecular level, as happened in 911.

By contrast, the U.S. has devoted more money and research than any nation on earth to developing precision weaponry, often computer-guided, in an effort to limit civilian casualties in war. Despite this, U.S.-caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan are too high and can be reduced.

And here's the kicker: The most important thing we can do to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan is not to leave, but to send more troops. After that, we MUST devote sufficient diplomatic and economic resources to rebuild Afghanistan's infrastructure and civilian institutions.

Under President Bush, troop levels in Afghanistan have been insufficient to restore order, clearly identify the enemy and conduct operations without the use of attack helicopters, drones and fixed-wing fighters and bombers. In short, we've conducted the war there as much from the air as from the ground.

A rifle is always more accurate than a 500-lb bomb and ALWAYS produces fewer unintended casualties. Until the U.S. sends more troops into Afghanistan, al Qaeda will be recruiting and planning more mass attacks on civilians, the Taliban will be plotting to retake Afghanistan and spread its fundamentalist and violent view of Islam. And civilian casualties will be too high, especially if the West abandons Afghanistan once again.