US is said to weigh Afghan invasion
By John Donnelly, and Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 9/16/2001
ASHINGTON - The Bush administration this
weekend is looking at a wide range of options
for military action against Afghanistan, but one senior
US official said that a full-scale war against the
Taliban government is the most likely course.
President Bush and his senior advisers are
considering waging war because they do not expect
the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden, the Saudi
dissident accused of being the mastermind of terrorist
attacks on Americans. The fundamentalist Islamic
government repeatedly has rebuffed Western
demands in the past.
A congressional source indicated that the most viable
option for avoiding military action is help from the
intelligence agency of neighboring Pakistan that
would lead to bin Laden's capture or a missile strike
that would kill him.
An invasion of mountainous Afghanistan would entail
moving several thousand ground troops to the region,
air support and naval warships, as well as setting up
ground bases in the region to house troops, the
sources said.
A full-scale war could not be conducted without the
kind of staging grounds for military operations that
Saudi Arabia provided during the Gulf War. Fewer
forces would be needed because the Taliban's army
is much smaller than Iraq's and is largely untrained.
The war planning includes efforts to identify areas in
the volatile region that could serve as military bases.
The congressional source said Pakistan or Central
Asia were the likeliest locations. The senior official indicated India is another
possibility. Each of the three locations poses geopolitical or domestic political
problems for the possible host.
One other option being consider is sending in a team of commandos for a quick
strike, although the senior official said an invasion was the far likelier course.
''They're not planning a short deal. They're planning a major deal,'' said the senior
official. ''We're talking full-scale.''
Still, the decision to establish a base in the region is not at this moment ''the first,
second, or third option'' in the minds of many military planners, said a former senior
US defense official, who has talked with several people in the administration about
the plan.
''But based on the Taliban's reluctance to agree to our demands in the past, the
feeling is, `OK fine, we'll take care of them and then do what we have to do in
Afghanistan to get bin Laden,''' said the former defense official, speaking on
condition of anonymity. ''That's why they have to plan for a large-scale war effort.''
For now, senior US officials have not asked either the governments of India or
Pakistan to use their territory as a base for military operations, diplomats from both of
those countries said yesterday.
The US official said that one possible staging area could be India, even though it does
not share a border with Afghanistan. Pakistan does.
All of Afghanistan's neighbors pose separate problems for setting up a base. The
United States has not had diplomatic ties with Iran since its 1979 revolution. Russia
has objected to the possible use of Central Asian states that fall within its own
defense orbit, the congressional source said. And putting a base in Pakistan could
spark a popular outcry from Taliban supporters and potentially destabilize the
Islamabad government. That leaves India as a possible choice, the official said.
''We haven't received any specific requests so far from the US government,'' Lalit
Mansingh, India's ambassador in Washington, said yesterday.
Asked whether India would consider a request, even though it has not allowed
foreign troops on its soil since gaining independence in 1947, Mansingh replied:
''That's a hypothetical question. We are willing to stand in full cooperation, but let us
wait for the administration to come back with something concrete.''
''I think it will be a very cautious Indian government,'' said Frank Wisner, a former
US ambassador to India. ''It will want to understand throughly what it is getting itself
in for. There are a lot of equities at stake. India is proud of getting along in her part
of the world, and there are tens of thousands of her nationals working in the Middle
East.''
Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, said yesterday that no
one in the administration has talked with Islamabad about sending in ground troops or
setting up a staging area in the region. She said that Bush, for the first time since the
air attacks, talked by phone yesterday with Pakistan's president, General Pervez
Musharraf.
''In an evolving situation, things still have to be determined,'' Lodhi said. ''There are
close consultations going on as we speak. I don't want to say anything now which
could jeopardize anything.''
The senior US official indicated that a request for use of Pakistani territory for
military operations would be made at some point.
Outside of the logistical problems of a base in India, such a move also could inflame
tensions in the region. India and Pakistan, both recent nuclear powers, have long
battled over the Kashmir region, and suspicions would immediately arise in Pakistan
on whether any US-India deal could influence the Kashmir issue.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the administration would
ask countries to fulfill a variety of tasks. But analysts believe that the most critical
work will be in sharing intelligence about bin Laden's group and individuals associated
with him around the world.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell singled out Pakistan yesterday for its cooperation,
saying it had agreed to help the United States in ''whatever might be required.''
''We've put before the Pakistani government a specific list of things that we would
like cooperation on, and they have agreed to all those items,'' he said yesterday at
Camp David.
While Bush has talked about building a worldwide coalition against terrorism, US
officials have yet defined what they mean.
There already are signs of dissension about the mission.
Egypt and other Arab states have agreed to cooperate with the campaign as long as
the aim remains to root out bin Laden and his followers.
''There will be some sticky issues,'' Nabil Fahmy, Egypt's ambassador in Washington,
said yesterday. ''We have to look clearly at what constitutes terrorism.''
He continued: ''If you pile on different agendas that are not purely issues of terrorism,
you lose the focus. This has to be an international issue. Terrorism proper is a priority
for us all.''
Arab countries are, in particular, concerned about the US definition of a terrorist.
While virtually all would agree and even welcome an attack on bin Laden, other
groups on the State Department's list - Hamas in the Palestinian territories or
Lebanon's Hezbollah - have their defenders.
John Donnelly can be reached by e - mail at donnelly@globe.com. Anthony
Shadid can be reached at shadid@globe.com.
This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 9/16/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. |
