Author: Michael R. Gordon
Publication: The New York Times
Date: September 17, 2001
When President Bush and his top
aides talk about military action to end Afghanistan's support for terrorism,
they are focusing on attacks to punish the Taliban and undermine their
control over the country, not a full-scale American occupation.
No war plan appears to have been
agreed on, and officially the Bush administration insists that no options
have been excluded.
The administration, however, is
preparing a powerful military strike if the Taliban, as expected, refuse
to hand over the terrorist Osama bin Laden and shut down his terrorist
network.
The blow would be intended not only
to destroy terrorist bases in Afghanistan but also to demonstrate to other
nations that there is a heavy cost to be paid for those who shelter enemies
of the United States.
A principal option is to intervene
militarily in Afghanistan's civil war on the side of the Taliban's foes:
the beleaguered rebel alliance that claims just a sliver of Afghanistan's
territory. It was just weakened further with the assassination of its leader,
Ahmed Shah Massoud, who died Saturday, after a bomb attack committed just
two days before the raids in New York and Washington.
At the same time, the United States
would apply additional pressure, for example, by persuading Pakistan to
close off financial channels to the bin Laden organization and the flow
of fuel to Afghanistan.
Such steps might fall short of a
knockout blow to the Taliban. Complicating the administration's planning,
the element of surprise has been lost. The Taliban and Mr. bin Laden's
men are expecting a bombing attack and have been evacuating their camps
and bases, according to American intelligence.
But there is a recognition that
to go further by carrying out a Soviet-style occupation with thousands
of troops would place the United States at odds with much of the Islamic
world and is fraught with danger.
The administration seems to be grappling
for a plan involving air power, and potentially ground troops, that is
more forceful than the cruise missile strike that the Clinton administration
launched in 1998 against Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan - with little effect
- but that is less than the huge air and ground offensive that the United
States launched in the Persian Gulf war.
Administration officials indicated
that military action against Afghanistan need not be an urgent matter without
the element of surprise. Indeed, the Pentagon will need time to position
its forces if it decides to carry out a major attack in a distant region
like Afghanistan, far from American bases.
But administration officials also
know that politically it will be easier to take action while world outrage
over the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
is still fresh.
The military action being planned
for Afghanistan is part of a broader diplomatic as well as military policy
of holding nations accountable that provide aid and comfort to terrorists.
The administration's goal is clear:
it wants to rip apart the terrorists' networks. But since the terrorists
are hard to find, Washington is focusing not just on them but on the governments
that back them. Certainly capturing a terrorist or enemy leader is one
of the most difficult of military tasks.
The American military tried in vain
to capture the Somali warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid. And it failed to break
Saddam Hussein's hold on power despite numerous raids including some devised
to kill the Iraqi leader.
The first Bush administration was
successful in apprehending Manuel Noriega, the Panama strongman. But Washington
had many advantages, including American military bases and airfields in
Panama.
But Mr. bin Laden has been elusive
and has based himself in a rugged region, remote from American bases and
forces. Vice President Dick Cheney said today that the United States was
not even sure that Mr. bin Laden is still in Afghanistan. Faced with a
difficult task of tracking him down, the Bush administration has responded
by enlarging the problem. The theory is that while the terrorist may be
hard to find, a government that shelters him is not.
"The terrorist organizations themselves
and the terrorists don't have targets of high value," Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld said today on the Fox News Channel. "They don't have
armies and navies and air forces that one can go battle against. They don't
have capital cities with high-value assets that they're reluctant to lose."
He added: "Some of the countries
that are harboring terrorist networks do, in fact, have high-value targets.
They do have capitals. They do have armies." Deputy Secretary of State
Paul D. Wolfowitz spoke last week of "ending states who sponsor terrorism."
Officials say now that he misspoke, that he meant to say that the goal
is ending state support.
In some cases, like Afghanistan,
that may be a semantic issue since the goal would be to dislodge the Taliban
rulers if they refused to cooperate with Washington's counterterrorism
campaign.
In other cases, political, economic
and limited military pressure may be applied. The Bush administration has
certainly not committed itself to invading all the nations on the State
Department's list of those found to help terrorists - Iran, Iraq, Syria,
Sudan, Libya, Cuba and North Korea.
And it may be prepared to show some
tactical flexibility. Some officials say that they do not exclude cooperating
with Iran, a supporter of the anti-Taliban insurgents, in their quest to
take the fight to the Taliban. That would be an application of the old
dictum "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
In a country as poor as Afghanistan,
there may be precious few of the high-value targets that Mr. Rumsfeld referred
to. But there are still bases, police posts and forces that the United
States could strike. Certainly the main focus is on targets in Afghanistan.
Mr. Cheney said there was no indication
that Iraq was linked to last week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
"Saddam Hussein's bottled up at this point," he said.
Recognizing the difficulty of its
military task, the Bush administration has also been avoiding expectations
that one or two raids will put an end to the worldwide terrorist threat.
It is talking about a military campaign that would last years, not months.
"What we have to do is take down
those networks of terrorist organizations," Mr. Cheney said today. "I think
this is going to be a struggle that the United States is going to be involved
in for the foreseeable future."