Bush Advisers Split on Scope of Retaliation
"Secretary of State Colin L. Powell argued during
weekend meetings with Mr. Bush that the
administration must take the time to prepare the diplomatic groundwork for
American military action, first in Afghanistan, by consulting with allies and
building the case to justify American actions under international law. "We
can't solve everything in one blow," said an administration official who has
sided with Secretary Powell."
WASHINGTON
By PATRICK E. TYLER and ELAINE SCIOLINO
From The New York Times
September 20, 2001
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — The
Bush administration is struggling
with its first high-level quarrels over the
scope and timing of its military response to
last week's attack on the United States,
administration officials said.
Some senior administration officials, led by
Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of
defense, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to
Vice President Dick Cheney, are pressing
for the earliest and broadest military
campaign against not only the Osama bin
Laden network in Afghanistan, but also
against other suspected terrorist bases in
Iraq and in Lebanon's Bekaa region.
These officials are seeking to include Iraq on
the target list with the aim of toppling
President Saddam Hussein, a step long
advocated by conservatives who support
Mr. Bush.
A number of conservatives circulated a new
letter today calling on the president to "make
a determined effort to remove Saddam
Hussein from power" even if he cannot be
linked to the terrorists who struck New
York and Washington last week.
In response to these efforts, Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell argued during
weekend meetings with Mr. Bush that the
administration must take the time to prepare the diplomatic groundwork for
American military action, first in Afghanistan, by consulting with allies and
building the case to justify American actions under international law. "We
can't solve everything in one blow," said an administration official who has
sided with Secretary Powell.
But at the Pentagon today, asked if he felt there was an Iraqi connection to
the attacks, Mr. Wolfowitz said, "I think the president made it very clear
today that this is about more than just one organization, it's about more than
just one event.
"And I think everyone has got to look at this problem with completely new
eyes in a completely new light."
Mr. Wolfowitz did not return a telephone call tonight. It is unclear what
position the Joint Chiefs of Staff have taken on the scope of any possible
retaliation. The State Department declined to comment.
The shock of last Tuesday's attacks and the magnitude of the challenge
before it in fashioning a response has, in some ways, united and galvanized
the Bush national security team.
But there are tensions. They stem in part from the basic clash of roles:
Secretary Powell faces the pragmatic work of coalition building and careful
diplomacy with allies who will take significant risks to support the United
States when so much anger is directed at its policies in the Middle East.
The Pentagon is surveying a host of unattractive military options as officials
seek to fulfill presidential and public expectations to strike back quickly and
decisively.
There are also ideological differences and even old personal conflicts from
the first Bush administration, the Reagan and the Ford administrations
cleaving a group of people facing an urgent crisis.
Today, President Bush and his advisers watched with some anxiety as the
Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, addressed his people to try to
persuade them to support the American response to last week's attacks. "A
lot of us are worried that he may not survive politically," one official said.
Mr. Bush and Secretary Powell also met with Russia's foreign minister, Igor
D. Ivanov, who expressed Russian concerns about the use of military force
in Central Asia, formerly under Soviet control. The Russians already are
providing intelligence information and Mr. Ivanov pledged to cooperate in
other ways.
During a weekend of intense national security planning, Secretary Powell
was said by several officials to have urged caution. He argued that to
undertake a broad military campaign, especially including Iraq — whose
civilian population draws great sympathy in the Middle East for the suffering
it has endured since 1991 — would undermine the support Mr. Bush needs
now.
On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to ally himself with
Secretary Powell's view when he said in a televised interview that the
administration did not have evidence linking Saddam Hussein to last week's
attacks.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was said to have joined the
consensus position of leaving Iraq and other targets out of initial plans.
"Rumsfeld for whatever reason has decided that Iraq can wait," one official
said, adding that "he hasn't given up on it."
But Mr. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's influential deputy secretary, is a
conservative thinker who has frequently clashed with Secretary Powell and
the State Department. He has continued to press for a military campaign
against Iraq that would not only punish Mr. Hussein for his past support for
terrorism at home and abroad but would also eliminate the danger he poses
to Israel and the West in his quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
One account of last weekend's private discussion among Mr. Bush and his
senior aides suggested a tense exchange occurred when Mr. Wolfowitz
made the the case for a broad and early campaign, including bombing Iraq.
Secretary Powell said targeting Iraq and Saddam Hussein would "wreck" the
coalition.
Mr. Wolfowitz has been more "concerned about bombing Iraq than bombing
Afghanistan," one senior administration official said.
Another administration official, an ally of Mr. Wolfowitz, said, "Paul's very
spirited position is to look at this more comprehensively."
On Monday, Secretary Powell betrayed his own impatience with Mr.
Wolfowitz's assertion — later retracted — that the administration was
committed to "ending states" that supported terrorism.
"We're after ending terrorism," Secretary Powell said when asked about Mr.
Wolfowitz's formulation. "And if there are states and regimes, nations, that
support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop
doing that. But I think `ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let Mr.
Wolfowitz speak for himself."
nytimes.com |
