With the Taliban overrun by the Northern Alliance and crumbling under threats from Pashtun groups in the south, the United States� apparent military rout of Afghanistan�s rulers and Osama bin Laden�s Al-Qaeda network isn�t enough for some folks. They want the U.S. to quickly extend its war into other places where America�s "strategic interests" can be taken care of�regardless of the impact on other people and nations.

Some of the loudest advocates of this view are not only within the Defense Department but are also found in the newsrooms and studios of television networks and on the editorial pages of newspapers. They have argued for moving quickly against Iraq, cranking up war machinery against Iran, pushing up on the Saudis and asserting strength in a region where, as CNN�s Tucker Carlson apparently believes, strength is all those backward people understand.

The hawkish media pronouncements are worrisome but not surprising, if you look at how the U.S. media has covered the war on terrorism. There have been few questions about U.S. policy and a patriotic bent used to justify everything from holding back the results of the controversial presidential election to chatting with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice about not airing videotapes of Mr. bin Laden; questioning whether civilian casualties are newsworthy or just part of any war and therefore not that important; memos warning against using front-page photos of civilian deaths or wire stories that lead with such casualties; opinion pieces early on that promoted war versus other solutions to the World Trade Center tragedy; and a mandate from CNN chair Walter Issacson that the network not report in a way that seemed to promote Taliban views, and make sure that any images of innocents killed by U.S. air strikes are balanced by reminders of Taliban abuses.

The news media would likely justify their pro-war stance by pointing to innocent people killed Sept. 11 and argue that the rules have changed.

The first rule change apparently quashes diversity of opinion and questioning government policy�which in the end impacts American lives and the economy�the very essence of the press freedom America loves to flaunt in the face of the rest of the world.

The question that arises: does the death of innocent Americans justify the unnecessary deaths of innocents elsewhere in the world? Many of those who lost loved ones�despite their enormous pain, or perhaps because of it�have said they want those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks punished, but they don�t want other innocent families to suffer as they have suffered.

That message apparently hasn�t registered with those prominent journalists who have railed against fighting a "politically correct" war, based on a Washington Post story in which unnamed sources said military officials possibly had top Taliban leaders in their sights but didn�t pull the trigger because higher-ups were concerned about civilian casualties.

Some of these journalists, who also questioned whether the president should have held a Ramadan dinner with Muslim diplomats and leaders the same night, emphatically declared that a U.S. victory would bring the respect and submission of Afghans and "propaganda" efforts needed to cease.

The problem with those who think like the media right-wingers is that they promote an arrogant course and a might makes right mentality that is wrong. The war against terrorism is supposed to be a war against wrong and evildoers, in the words of the Bush administration. If the U.S. fails to act cautiously and show the world that its cause is just, it may create enemies and lose the sympathy gained from lives lost in early September.

So despite war cries from pundits and analysts far removed from the loss of life, the Bush administration needs to move carefully and show respect and concern for world opinion. Moving that way might just make America truly the world leader, not because might makes right, but because right makes right.