Posted on 09/18/2001 5:29:07 PM PDT by Rome2000
BY WARREN P. STROBEL
Herald Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- As he weighs retaliation for last week's terrorist attacks, President Bush is receiving conflicting advice from his top aides, some of whom want to go beyond a military strike on terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden's bases in Afghanistan and topple states that have long threatened the United States, particularly Iraq.
The split between civilian officials at the Pentagon and Secretary of State Colin Powell, confirmed Monday by current and former U.S. officials, goes to the heart of Bush's proposed new war on international terrorism.
Powell, seeking to build and hold an international coalition against terrorism that includes many Muslim nations, is urging caution, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman wants to limit military strikes to bin Laden's Afghan redoubts and to use other means -- diplomacy, law enforcement and financial pressure -- to shut down terrorist networks elsewhere.
That view is not shared by the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and others have argued strenuously in inter-agency meetings for a far more sweeping U.S. response, including a strategic bombing campaign and aid for Iraqi opposition groups to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the officials said.
The retaliatory campaign should include ``ending states who sponsor terrorism,'' Wolfowitz said at a news conference last week.
Wolfowitz's rhetoric -- which has not been repeated by other members of Bush's foreign policy team -- appeared to be a reference to Iraq.
The deputy defense secretary and other aides to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have been calling for an aggressive U.S. effort to oust Hussein since before they took office.
There is no evidence that Iraq helped plan or execute last Tuesday's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to U.S. intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. But proponents of ousting Hussein cite his longtime support of terrorist movements and the hotly debated theory that Iraq played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
``This is just an added reason for making life as difficult as we can for Saddam,'' said Richard Perle, an advisor to the Pentagon and leading proponent of increased aid to the opposition Iraqi National Congress.
``If all we do is go after bin Laden, it'll make a mockery of all the president had to say about waging a war on terrorism,'' Perle said.
But a response that goes beyond bin Laden and Afghanistan's Taliban leaders, who host the terrorist mastermind, poses potentially grave problems for Bush and his diplomacy.
During the Persian Gulf War, Bush's father held together a fractious international coalition that included many Arab states by sticking to the narrow goal of ousting Hussein's troops from Kuwait rather than occupying Iraq and removing its leader.
Bush and Powell have rallied many world leaders to their side over the last week. But there is virtually no support in this new international coalition, particularly among its Muslim members, for attacks on Iraq or other Middle Eastern nations that give succor to terrorists.
``We're trying to build a coalition and people are lining up to join us, and they [Pentagon officials] want to blow it all to hell by bombing Iraq tomorrow,'' said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The Pentagon proposals are ``exactly the kind of thing that would just alienate a lot of people,'' said Kenneth Pollack, a Persian Gulf specialist at the White House National Security Council until earlier this year.
Also in the back of officials' minds is then-President Bill Clinton's response to the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, also traced to bin Laden's network.
Many people worldwide did not begrudge the United States the right to retaliate for the bombings.
But Washington was widely seen to lose the moral high ground when, in addition to sending cruise missiles to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, it targeted a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan whose links to bin Laden remain in dispute to this day.
If Bush's retaliation goes beyond bin Laden, ``there's a real possibility that we're going to start losing support left and right,'' said Pollack, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read into that what you want.
" To: Rome2000
>>said Kenneth Pollack, a Persian Gulf specialist at the White House National Security Council until earlier this year.<<
Earlier this year?
Like, before January 20?
Thought so.
52 Posted on 09/18/2001 19:04:22 PDT by Jim Noble [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]"
And if it does not "there's a real possibility that we're going to" see weapons of mass destruction wielded against our cities by terrorists supplied by the nations whose leadership and capabilites we do not eliminate now while we have a chance.
Yes, we need to go nuclear, figuratively or literally, simply to deter the murder of millions of our citizens. No one of you should have the illusion that there are not Islamic fanatics studying, plotting, and planning for that. No one of you unless one of you is our enemy as well.
Not necessarily. I believe it is likely that much of what we hear is not at all what it seems. If we believe that there is disagreement, uncertainty and foot dragging, so must our enemies. I think things are being played so close to the vest that we will all be surprised.
I'm with you. Folks need to be a little patient.
Right on, Colin - it's worked so well in the past, why ruin a good thing? < /sarcasm > Unreal.
I really do not know how we should proceed, but I believe the elder Bush will counsel, what else, "prudence." Wouldn't be prudent to do otherwise.
Those that have committed these outrages must be brought to justice. Those that did this have set into motion events they will come to regret. Many innocents will probably die because of this, and many have already died.
If the Taliban refuses to hand over Bin Laden, then most likely, as a result of the heavy bombings Afghanistan will undergo, Civil War will be touched off in Pakistan, because of the strong ties that exist between the peoples of the two countries. Hell, we have the same ethnic groups on both sides of the border there. The fundamentalists are strong there, and more than likely, those in Pakistan will make efforts to come to the aid of the Taliban. Pakistan is economically very weak. Falling further and further behind India. This will set off Kashmir. The radicals there will feel they have nothing to lose, because they know that if Pakistan is weakened further, then more than likely India will keep Kashmir.
If the situation there erupts like I think it will, then we will see our coalition, along with India, overwhelm the fundamentalists in both countries. They will go down fighting, and these clearly aren't sane people. Pakistan has nukes. More than likely the Army there is infiltrated with some radicals, and they will fire any weapons they can get their hands on at India and any other country they can.
What I'm trying to say here is that the situation in that part of the world is such that serious internal problems could arise within Pakistan that would quickly set the stage for a larger war. Some people there, in order to stave off total defeat, might feel it's in their interests to involve the rest of the Moslem world in the war. In fact, I would say they definitely feel this way. It only takes several missiles fired towards India. They could plot to gain control of several sites, and set off the weapons.
Iraq would then make mischief. Probably doing all it can to engage Israel in the conflict. The West Bank and Lebanon would then go up in flames. Syria would become involved. Then all hell would break loose.
I don't have the answers. The people who did this must be brought to justice. Sadly, we may be in for a horrible conflict.
What turnip truck did you say you fell off of? Bush Sr. was in charge during the Gulf War, not Powell. What's your BS with the "affirmative action SoS"? Get yourself some education and get out of your "anonymous" cave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.