WASHINGTON: Five months after it began, the fighting in Afghanistan has become what the United States claimed it was all along: a ‘war on international terrorism’ fought by an international coalition.

With more than a half-dozen countries as diverse as Norway, France, Germany, and Canada involved in what Pentagon officials say is the largest ground combat operation so far, the war in Afghanistan is now closer to being the world’s ‘war against terrorism’.

The latest fighting, which has already cost the US more casualties than the rest of the war, suggests a recalibrating of the original go-it-alone strategy.

“The Americans have learned that it is better not just to talk about a coalition, but to show that there is a coalition on the ground,” says Bernhardt May, deputy director of the influential German Foreign Policy Society in Berlin. “We have to work on the coalition politically.”

Coalition fighters now make up more than 10 per cent of a ground force the Pentagon says numbers about 2,000, of which more than 800 are Americans mainly from the 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain divisions. The mostly European coalition soldiers include special operations units with specific training in winter mountain fighting.

The troops — in the largest offensive since the war began in October — have engaged with Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Gardez, in extremely high, snow-covered mountains in the eastern part of Afghanistan. Known as Operation Anaconda, ground troops have surrounded pockets of Al Qaeda fighters and are blocking all escape routes.

Meanwhile, US bombers are now pummelling the caves where the ‘terrorists’ are holed up.

It is to the US’s advantage militarily to be able to call on allied forces with special training, as their deployment in the mountains demonstrates. Beyond that, the US knows Al Qaeda has cells in up to 60 countries. Taking them out will require cooperation, which in turn requires good political relations.

The stronger the link that can be demonstrated in those countries, the stronger the support is among Europeans, says Tomas Valasek, a senior analyst with the Center for Defence Information in Washington. “But when the US is seen moving forward with motivations other than simply terrorism — as in the case of Iraq — the support drops off.”

While no one suggests the US military chose this battle to make a political statement, the end result could nevertheless be a coalition more comfortable with US command of the war.

The inclusion of coalition forces also reflects the Pentagon rethinking its strategy following the December battle for Tora Bora, military analysts say. In that battle, the US dropped in only a few special forces troops to guide airstrikes. They relied almost exclusively on local Afghan warlords to run the ground operation.

This time the US is doing more of the ground work to get the job done right — and is also calling on allied forces to help.

Still, the new-found harmony between the US and its allies may not last beyond the fighting in Afghanistan, some analysts say.

For one thing, European involvement is still not as “robust” as the allies would like, he says.

But differences are going to continue to surface over the future direction of the war — and especially over any attack on Iraq.

Official European enthusiasm for the war could also be affected if any of the allied forces take casualties.

Others wonder how Europe will respond if it the world’s Muslim populations more solidly associate it with a war being fought against Al Qaeda forces — which include fighters from perhaps a dozen Muslim countries. —Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service.