President tests patience of nation hungry for action
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 27 2001
The coalition
FROM ROLAND WATSON IN WASHINGTON
PRESIDENT Bush could not have been clearer. Two days after the bloodshed and ruin of September 11, he bristled with the scope of his planned retaliation.
“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.” It was just the kind of vengeful war-mongering for which the listening group of Republican senators yearned.
Yet, more than two weeks after declaring hostilities, the most surprising element of the first war of the 21st century is that America has yet to return fire.
Some are quick to credit the steadying influence of Colin Powell, the cautious Secretary of State, in explaining the delay in American military action. Certainly, his job of assembling the international coalition would be made harder, maybe impossible, if Washington launched strikes first and asked for allies after.
But Mr Bush seems to be playing a cannier game than many thought him capable. His declaration to the Republican senators may have conveyed the impression of visiting Armageddon on Afghanistan. But the key word was “when”.
While many mistook his anger and determination for haste and impatience, Mr Bush was focusing on the long term. Hence his pleas for patience. However, there are mounting political tensions which mean that patience, as a tactic, will not last for ever. Pentagon hawks and right-wing Republicans are thirsting for immediate revenge while an overwhelming majority of the public supports military retaliation.
Mr Bush has so far chosen to address those desires with his language rather than action. His demand for Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” portrayed him as a fire-at-will gunslinger. In fact, it was a carefully scripted attempt to tell America that, one way or another, it would get its man.
Mr Bush’s other favoured colloquialism when referring to al-Qaeda is his intent to “smoke ‘em out of their caves, get ‘em running, hunt ‘em down”. The intent is the same, that America will get its target. But the message is that to succeed in smoking them out, the US will have to bide its time.
Mr Bush’s approach is, apparently, endorsed by most voters. Although 92 per cent of Americans support military retaliation, according to a New York Times poll, and 83 per cent back force even if it means going to war with a nation harbouring terrorists, 78 per cent believe that Mr Bush should wait until he is certain who is responsible for the attacks.
The more Mr Bush waits, the more other pressures emerge. One of the most pressing problems is whether to widen the attack to include countries such as Iraq, suspected of sponsoring terrorism. Mr Bush has already rejected such arguments, championed by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Defence Secretary. The initial focus is to be on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
But Mr Bush and his war cabinet cannot answer whether the US wants to replace the Taleban regime. The question is critical to the building of a coalition and any choice of targets in Afghanistan. Pakistan, the pivotal country in the US-assembled coalition, has given warning against any attempt to remove the Taleban.
The White House has dropped clear hints that it sees no future for a regime that Mr Bush has described as “terrible”. Pakistan, strong-armed by Washington to join America rather than face its wrath, is warning that toppling the Taleban would be a “recipe for great disaster” for the Afghan people. It is an indication of the many diplomatic minefields to be negotiated before America starts firing.
There is, however, another reason for Mr Bush’s pleas for patience. Having resolved that the initial phase of his war on terrorism be focused on one notoriously elusive man, Mr Bush has to get that man. Anything less would amount to failure. And to get him, he first has to find him.
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Best Regards, J.T. |
