msnbc.com
Powell: U.S.
on war footing
NATO mulls joint action
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
Sept. 12 — With public anger in America on the boil, the United States began a global effort Wednesday to win maximum maneuverability for a large military strike against any group or state connected with Tuesday’s devastating terrorist strikes in New York and Washington. While no public accusations were made, senior U.S. officials hinted strongly at an impending move against Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden and his backers in the Middle East.
WITH MESSAGES of support pouring in from U.S. allies and neutral states alike, the president placed the American military on its highest alert status since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war: DefCon or Defense Condition 3 — a move consistent with preparations for war. In Europe, meanwhile, the world’s most powerful military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations, was taking steps to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter, which authorizes the use of the combined might of the U.S. and Europe anywhere on the globe. A resolution was expected to be approved later Wednesday that would clear the way for Article 5 activation as soon as evidence points to a specific culprit.
Underscoring the gravity of the situation, President Bush and senior aides have taken pains to describe the double airliner suicide attacks on the twin towers in New York and a third on the Pentagon as “acts of war.” While that does not in itself mean the United States will formally declare war on a foreign power, it is an extremely blunt phrase in the language of diplomacy.
“We believe that acts of war have been committed against American people and we will response accordingly,” Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters on Wednesday.
“It’s not just a matter of going after the perpetrators but it’s going after and dealing with the sources of support they have,” he said. “We will hold accountable those countries that provide support, that give ... support facilities to these kinds of terrorist groups.” Powell said he was in consultations with American allies in Europe and the Middle East. He also has dispatched an envoy to tell Pakistan — one of the few nations that support the Taliban — that the United States expects its full cooperation.
Privately, administration officials discouraged speculation that any military retaliation was imminent. However, several officials also said the administration had concluded that Tuesday’s attacks could not be handled as a criminal investigation like, for instance, the Pan Am 103 bombings.
“We’ve crossed the Rubicon here,” said a Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “There is a concern that we not lash out. But there’s an even stronger sense that we have to hit not just the groups involved but the people who give them money and the people who give them shelter.” On Tuesday, a senior U.S. official told MSNBC.com that “no option has been taken off the table.” Asked if that included nuclear weapons, one senior official said: “I said no option is out of the question. That’s precisely what I mean.”
A LINE CROSSED?
The nature and precision of the attacks, along with their unknown origin, left the United States with no useful precedents or contingency plans to fall back on. Bush indicated his intention to broaden his options last night when he told an international television audience: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who commit these acts and those who harbor them.”
If that is true, it does indeed represent a change in American policy. In the past, terrorists actions have been followed by meticulous investigations and diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing the culprits before an American, or at least an international, court. Even in cases where retaliatory strikes were taken — against Libya in 1986 and bin Laden-related sites in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 — the actions were more “pin-pricks” in military jargon than outright assaults on foreign nations.
In each of those cases, the presidents at the time were assured by intelligence services that irrefutable evidence linked the targets to the crimes.
“We lost something like 245 Marines in Lebanon, there was the Mogadishu thing, the Cole, Khobar Towers and embassies in Africa,” said Professor William Turcotte, chairman of the national security decision-making department at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I. “We haven’t had a clue as to what to do. ... The fundamental issue we have not addressed: If the harborer of terrorists — Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan — if they have said the U.S. is ‘The Great Satan,’ and even without a smoking gun we know they have encouraged this, do you attack the country? So far, we have not. Will our mood change?”
This time around, the administration seems to be suggesting that strikes may be much larger and approved on a somewhat more liberal standard.
Ken Allard, an MSNBC military analyst, said such a change in the rules might be justified, but that the administration should not be blind to the dangers. “I think you need patience here,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot about the national character here. How far are we willing to go to build a coalition? Will we just strike out blindly? And how far do you want to push Pakistan, for instance, a nuclear state?”
THE MILITARY RAMPS UP
Video coverage of Tuesday's attack.
Soon after the attacks, one of which devastated the U.S. military’s headquarters at the Pentagon, the United States ordered steps consistent with preparations for war. President Bush placed American military commands around the world, including North American Air Defense Command, or NORAD, on their highest level of alert. The United States has about 20,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, more than 100,000 troops in Europe and about the same number in East Asia.
Air Force One, carrying Bush, landed briefly at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, home of U.S. Strategic Command. Once U.S. airspace had been “sanitized,” Bush returned to Washington, where he addressed the nation Tuesday night. Military officials said it was believed to be the first time ever that a president was removed to a nuclear-secure command bunker. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961 — perhaps the only comparable moment of international peril for the American chief executive since the command bunkers were constructed — John F. Kennedy stayed in Washington.
MILITARY OPTIONS
As President Bush weighs options, the difficulty of pinpointing bin Laden — if in fact the United States decides he is responsible — presents a dilemma. Among the options under active consideration:
Major retaliatory strikes: The United States could strike at Afghanistan with missile strikes — possibly even tactical nuclear weapons — to demonstrate its anger and the grave consequences of attacks on U.S. soil.
Military invasion: The president could ask Congress to declare war on Afghanistan and order a buildup of forces similar to that which preceded the Gulf War in 1990. Such a move, however, would require the acquiescence of a neighboring state — either Pakistan or one of the former Soviet Central Asian nations.
Manhunt: The Army’s Delta Force or other assets could be inserted into Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden.
Proxy action: The United States could exert extreme diplomatic pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two states that have supported the Afghan Taliban in the past, to bring bin Laden to justice. |
