EDITORIAL
Mission to Liberia: the right thing to do

Even though it will be a short visit for a man still lightly traveled, President Bush is sure to come away from Africa convinced that sending U.S. peacekeeping forces to Liberia is the right thing to do.

Given more time there, the continent would steal his heart and break it, too.

Liberia is only one of more than 50 African nations, all with seemingly intractable problems. Bush has made a good start with Africa with his AIDS initiative, but so much more is needed.

Among the arguments against sending troops to Liberia is Bush's campaign promise to avoid "Clintonesque" peacekeeping missions. Obviously the view from the Oval Office has a clarity that can't be imagined from the campaign trail.

The Pentagon has been reluctant to send troops to Liberia, fearing that American forces could get caught up in a complex civil war at a time when the United States military is already stretched thin.

It's not that the military doesn't have the resources. The problem is that forces already deployed abroad, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and elsewhere, have been there too long.

But joining an international peacekeeping effort in Liberia would help Bush show that the United States remains willing to work with the United Nations and the European allies after the rift over the war with Iraq.

It would also signal that the United States is serious about helping to bring peace and prosperity to Africa as the president leaves tomorrow

for his trip to Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda and Nigeria.

the United States has special ties to Liberia, built 150 years ago around freed American slaves.

Most important, the peacekeepers can separate combatants, stanching the shocking hemhorraging of human blood and misery. The mission is not about regime change or strategic initiative. It's about saving lives.

In the final analysis, it's the right thing to do.