A Los Angeles Times editorial said US military operations in Afghanistan and now in Iraq "should put to rest a piece of conventional wisdom that emboldened Osama bin Laden and other terrorists: that America won't send its young men and women into battle."

But it argued that US policymakers must not allow their appreciation of US military successes to translate into "a strategy of reckless interventionism."

"If the United States and British show of force makes aggressive regimes more wary, the world will be safer. If renewed willingness to use ground troops encourages Bush administration hawks to consider more wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, the opposite will be true," The Los Angeles Times pointed out.

USA Today analyzed a host of problems that will confront post-Saddam Hussein Iraq once the war is over and urged the administration of President George W. Bush to reconsider its hostility to its critics in the aftermath of the war.

"The approach of a victorious military campaign is at least partly due to careful planning and flexibility," the paper noted in an editorial. "Both ingredients also are essential in meeting the postwar challenges that lie ahead. So, too, is the need to hear out those with differing opinions, something that the US didn't always welcome in the lead-up to war."

The newspaper also points out that finding Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration used to justify the invasion "is vital for US credibility in Iraq and much of the world that has opposed the war."

One of the editorials in Wednesday's New York Times is devoted to the same subject, with the paper calling for a UN role in finding Saddam's suspected chemical and biological arsenal.

"Solving this mystery requires urgent, neutral investigation once the allies gain full control of Iraq and can mount a sustained search," the paper said.

The New York Times argued that it was possible that Iraq simply had far fewer weapons of mass destruction than many have suspected and warned against any attempt to tamper with evidence, or lack thereof.

"But for any findings to be credible in the battle for global opinion, neutral analysts -- from the United Nations or technically proficient nations like Finland or Switzerland -- will be needed to verify the laboratory results and ensure a strict chain of custody to avoid charges of tampering with the evidence," the editorial said.

Meanwhile, the conservative Wall Street Journal warned against giving the United Nations a significant role in post-war Iraq, pointing to the example of Haiti, where the United Nations had tried to introduce and strengthen democracy in the 1990s.

"Recall that, under a UN resolution, US troops restored 'democracy' to Haiti during the (former US president Bill) Clinton years by removing military coup-leader Raoul Cedras," the Journal noted, adding "it's been downhill ever since."

Reminding that in January 2001 the United Nations closed its Haiti mission and "full-blown anarchy" took over, the paper concludes: "We doubt the US and its allies could do any worse in Iraq."

SPACE.WIRE