TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 — This morning we were treated to one of the rare bits of good news we’ve had since September 11: the fall of Kabul. The mighty Taliban are in retreat. Does this mean a quick end to the war on terrorism? It’s been fashionable of late to quote Winston Churchill. But his words after the defeat of the Germans and Italians at El Alamein in Egypt on October 28, 1942, seem particularly appropriate now: "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

This political collapse of the Taliban is undoubtedly what the Pentagon expected within the first two weeks of the war, when it used only minimal firepower against the enemy. The fall of Kabul and the other Afghan cities — Mazar-e-sharif and Herat, among others — will give American forces basing and staging points from which to ferret out Osama bin Laden. This, to be sure, is a victory, but a minimal one. Remember, for all the talk of the 10-year USSR war in Afghanistan, the Soviets always controlled the urban centers; they had, after all, been invited in by Afghanistan’s Communist government. The Northern Alliance victory in Afghanistan merely puts us where the Russians were on day one.

But with that caveat also comes a bit of perspective. The Pentagon must keep in mind that its mission in Afghanistan differs completely from the Soviets’ goal there. The Soviets, like the US in Vietnam, sought to prop up an unpopular local government by controlling the countryside. In our new war, the US will not seek to control large tracks of Afghan soil. Rather, American forces — using air power — will make periodic raids in search of bin Laden and Al Qaeda forces. It’s certainly no picnic, but don’t expect to see US troops garrisoned in every mountain village throughout the country. At least, we better not see that — for all our sakes.

Even if victory in Afghanistan is upon us, that does not mark the war on terrorism’s end. A compelling episode of Frontline makes a strong case that Saddam Hussein played at least a contributory role in the September 11 attacks. (Watch for footage of President George H.W. Bush’s national-security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, grudgingly admitting he made a mistake in allowing Saddam Hussein to slaughter civilians in the immediate wake of the Gulf War.) It’s a point augmented by William Safire’s most recent column. Certainly, the Saudis may convince the Bush administration to call it a day after "phase one" in Afghanistan. But that could lead to a victory no more complete than the 1991 conclusion of the Gulf War.

Comment on this piece in the Phoenix Forum.