BRUSSELS, Sept. 15 — After offering expressions of support immediately following this week's attacks on the United States, European allies are showing signs of backpedaling.

The NATO allies have said they could support some military action. But now the caveats are beginning to roll in, making clear that the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will not translate into an unconditional writ for American retaliation.

Particularly as talk in Washington has grown tougher, the allies have begun showing signs that they want a carefully thought out plan to combat terrorism, not a burst of military might that turns out to be brutal and ineffective.

Many politicians here have begun distancing themselves from Washington's saber rattling. While President Bush has repeatedly described the terror attacks as "acts of war," Europeans officials are going out of their way to avoid such language.

On a radio program the Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, said the European Union was "on watch" and "mobilized." But he added, "We are not at war."

In France, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin has cautioned that there is no "war against Islam or the Arab- Muslim world." Moreover, he signaled that France would not automatically support military action. "Our humane, political and functional solidarity with the United States," he said, "does not deprive us of our sovereignty and freedom to make up our own minds."

Even the French left, often thought of as reflexively anti-American seemed to soften. The daily Le Monde ran a column headlined "we are all Americans." But it is clear that the continent remains wary of a gung-ho, simplistic military retaliation, it sees America capable of.

Since Wednesday, when the NATO alliance for the first time invoked its mutual defense clause, strongly suggesting it would offer military support if the United states should ask for it, European leaders have been stressing non-military options.

On a visit to Russia Thursday, The French foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, argued for a broad antiterrorism plan that might incorporate military action, but did not overlook financial and logistical networks as well as political efforts. The next day the German defense minister, Rudolph Scharping, also urged a "measured" response.

Even Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has offered Mr. Bush his full support, insisted on Friday that any retaliation "must and will be based on hard evidence," and his spokesman has said that the support does not amount to a "blank check."

The invocation of the mutual defense clause does not actually obligate NATO countries to do much. Any decision to launch joint strikes would require further council deliberation, as would a decision to place national forces under NATO command. For most, the real decision will come when America maps out its plans and asks for help.

In the meantime, even Russia, which took the highly unusual step of issuing a joint statement with NATO, has made clear since then that the United States and its allies should not rely on Central Asia to stage any retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan.

"I see absolutely no basis for even hypothetical suppositions about the possibility of NATO military operations on the territory of Central Asia nations," Mr. Ivanov said.

Newspapers across the Continent are also urging the Americans to use restraint. The French daily Liberation called for "extreme severity against identifiable culprits" but cautioned against "blind vengeance."

An editorial published today in The Guardian urged Mr. Bush to consider diplomatic coercion, painstaking investigation, interdiction of terrorist funds and economic punishment before "sending his enormous bombs."

"There is another way," the newspaper said. "It is less dramatic, less visceral, more statesmanlike."