Military

DATE=09/22/2001

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-00986

TITLE=ON THE LINE: STRIKING BACK AT TERRORISTS

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0037

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Anncr: On the Line a discussion of United States policy and contemporary issues. This week, "Striking Back at Terrorists." Here is your host, Robert Reilly.

Host: Hello and Welcome to On the Line. In response to the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., President George W. Bush has declared war against international terrorism. Mr. Bush said, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." The organization responsible for the terrorist attacks appears to be al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden has long called for the murder of American civilians and military personnel. Al-Qaida reportedly has links to a variety of terrorist groups and operates in as many as sixty countries, including the U-S. Vice President Dick Cheney said, "What we have to do is take down those networks of terrorist organizations."

Joining me today to discuss the coming campaign against international terrorists and the states that support them are three experts. Yonah Alexander is a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and director of its International Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies. He is also the co-author of the new book, Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist Network. Michael Rubin is a visiting scholar at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy. And Charles Fairbanks is the director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the School for Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University. Welcome to the program.

Yonah Alexander, what does a war against terrorism mean against an enemy that you don't know and sometimes can't see?

Alexander: That's the big problem. I mean, it's a very insidious kind of war. Unlike the conventional war that you see with soldiers crossing borders and tanks and airplanes dropping bombs, this is the war in the shadow. Who are they? Where are they? And how are you going to deal with that? So that's why it's so complicated. Perhaps we have to redefine, again, our terms. But what is clear, whether you call it war or whether you call it low-intensity conflict or high-intensity conflict, what is clear is that the adversary does not follow the laws of armed conflict, meaning international laws of war. And in a way, they are criminals because they are killing women and children. And I would suggest that we have to label terrorism as a crime against humanity.

Host: Michael Rubin, since Afghanistan is the home base of Osama bin Laden and you have spent considerable time inside Afghanistan, how would you describe the relationship between the Taleban, which rules ninety percent of the country, and Al-Qaida?

Rubin: Many different groups have decided to call Afghanistan home. One of the chief issues that I think about as an analyst is: why does the Taleban suffer such international isolation because they're so willing to shelter Osama bin Laden? And when I went around Afghanistan, what I heard was that their focus, the Taleban's focus, is and was domestic. Osama bin Laden brought them fighters which they could use in their war against Ahmad Shah Massoud [who was the leader of the Northern Alliance], recently assassinated in the north of the country. And so that is what the Taleban gained from Osama bin Laden. It has nothing to do with hospitality or anything else. That said, most people in Afghanistan don't particularly support the Taleban anymore, nor do they particularly care for Osama bin Laden who is about to bring even further suffering to the state of Afghanistan.

Host: Charles Fairbanks, you're a student of this region. Many analysts say that the Taleban could not exist, nor could it continue to exist, without support from Pakistan? We now know that President [Pervez] Musharraf of Pakistan has said he would support the U-S campaign against terrorism, but can he do that in any meaningful way that could flush out bin Laden?

Fairbanks: If it's done in a secret way, the Pakistanis would have tremendous resources because the very fact that they played a role in organizing the Taleban and its military victories and a certain amount of financing and planning means that they must have better intelligence than anyone else, though not perfect, about the Taleban. I think things that are done in public, unless they are very, very limited, are likely to further shake the very fragile Pakistani state.

Host: Did you want to say something about it?

Rubin: One thing I would interject when it comes to U-S policy in general is [that] I would agree with what Dr. Fairbanks said. However, I think the watershed we're going to see now is that the United States is no longer going to judge states on their assurances and on their rhetoric. And we are going to look for action. The Pakistanis, and especially the Inter Service Intelligence agency, the I-S-I, are partly responsible for creating what has become an international monster. And, therefore, the U-S is going to look for their help in helping to deal with this in the same way that we're no longer going to just accept Iranian condolences or rhetoric about their issues, or the same thing when it comes to the Iraqis.

Host: On the other hand, Yonah Alexander, some people say that Osama bin Laden would like nothing more than to see the United States involved in a guerrilla war in Afghanistan.

Alexander: Of course. The point is that, for him, it is the clash of civilizations. In other words, his ideology or theology, if you will, is to continue the war that [prophet] Muhammad began to restore the glory of Islam, to unite all Muslims under one umbrella. It's the best way for him to have the United States attack, so he is victimized. Then, therefore, he has the duty, the obligation, to attack the United States and their allies and, ultimately, to bring victory to Islamdom.

Host: Tell us a little more about the nature of al-Qaida and what else constituted it, because it's apparently being run out of Afghanistan. And it's obviously not just Afghans since he is a Saudi himself.

Alexander: Right. It's a big mistake to think that everything happens in Afghanistan. He is there now and obviously so is the infrastructure. But they have the infrastructure in Pakistan. He has the infrastructure in Egypt and, as you mentioned before, in probably some sixty countries around the world, including the United States. This is really a network. It's a network. It's a very sophisticated network in this sense -- that they communicate, they collaborate with each other in terms of propaganda, in terms of financial support, in terms of training and providing arms and equipment, in terms of organizing attacks around the world. But it is a loose kind of association and we're dealing actually with a situation whereby some local groups determine what kind of activity they're going to be engaged with. It doesn't mean that Osama bin Laden is sitting there in a cave, you know like Dr. No [a James Bond character], pulling the strings of every activity around the world. But he provides the inspiration. He provides financial support. And they do have an organizational structure, meaning they have committees, for example, dealing with theological issues like the Islamic ruling, the fatwa, or the military committees, for example, their propaganda and psychological warfare groups, and so on.

Host: And also groups that experiment with biological and chemical weapons?

Alexander: I wouldn't say experiment, to our knowledge, but there is no question about their efforts over the years to obtain biological, chemical, and nuclear capability.

Host: I think some intelligence photographs revealed dead animals on test sites at the bin Laden bases in Afghanistan, leading some people to believe that he is obviously attempting to obtain these kinds of weapons of mass destruction.

Fairbanks: That's true, I think. I mean, the mere name of them is important to symbolism, which is so important for terror, even regardless of their real capabilities. It strikes me, in response to the last exchange, that Taleban probably does feel fairly confident because they won fairly recently and they are really people who have a mission. And it's still early in that mission. I don't think that they have much support in the northern half of the country because of the ethnic factor that all the Taliban leaders are Durrani Pashtuns from the southwest or south. And the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and various small groups in the north see them clearly as a continuation of the royal and Communist Afghan governments, which, on the whole, tended to be Pashtun-dominated.

Host: Let me just take a minute to remind our audience that this is On the Line and I'm Robert Reilly. And this week we're discussing about the campaign to strike back at terrorists with Yonah Alexander from the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; Michael Rubin from the Washington Institute of Near East Policy; and Charles Fairbanks from Johns Hopkins University.

Michael Rubin?

Rubin: I'd actually like to jump in on your comments. In March of 2000, I was fortunate enough to visit Afghanistan with Taleban permission. One of the things I did, because I'm neither a journalist nor an aid worker -- I fell through the cracks. I grew a beard and I can speak some Persian. So I was able to go around and interview people. I would agree with you that you're right. There is not a great deal of support for the Taleban, not only in the northern Persian half of Afghanistan, but also among a good deal of the Pashtun and in Kandahar. What people told me repeatedly was that, yes, we may have welcomed the Taleban when they first came because they promised security and they promised an end to the war. And even some of the Taleban I interviewed said the war is nowhere near ending. And Ahmad Shah Massoud's death doesn't change this.

Host: Let me just add to what you said because there are reports that not only is the Taleban unpopular, but Osama bin Laden is even more unpopular because the Arab fighters associated with him are used by the Taleban, along with some Pakistani fighters, to exercise the scorched earth policy that the Taliban is using against opposition, where they simply go in and wipe out entire villages and towns in areas in which there's been any armed opposition to them. So there is actual hatred growing for Osama bin Laden. Does that comport with what you know?

Rubin: That does jibe with what I know. Just one anecdote is [that] in front of one of the palaces in Kabul, I'd always make a point of asking people questions, asking directions in Persian, to see whether they could understand me. I might have an accent, but people on the street can understand me. And there was one guy in front of one of the palaces who just started screaming at me in Urdu, which, of course, is a Pakistani language. And one of the nearby pedestrians came up to me afterwards and said, don't worry about it; they do it to everyone. Also there is a case, I interviewed one woman . . . .

Host: Meaning, who does it to everyone?

Rubin: The Taleban and, especially, what they call the Pakistanis. In the book market in Kabul, they asked me; where are you from? They could tell I was a foreigner because I didn't dress like an Afghan. And I did have this strange accent even if I was speaking Persian. And after playing where do you think I came from, I asked: what other foreigners do you see around? And they said, well, we see French and Swedes. And I said, who are they? They said, they are doctors with the aid organizations. And then they said, we see Filipinos and Egyptians. And I said who are they? They said, that's easy; they are here for Jihad. Also, when it comes to the arrogance of many of the Talebs, you have these pick-up trucks zooming down the middle of the street in Kabul at seventy miles an hour. And I met one woman with an international N-G-O [non-governmental organization] who was widowed because her husband was struck and killed by one of these trucks, which never bothered to stop. This is the type of thing, which is the reason why not only the Taleban, but the foreigners that have come at their behest for their alleged Jihad, are no longer welcome among most of the Afghan people.

Host: Yonah Alexander, President Bush said last week that, were Osama bin Laden shown to be responsible for this, there are posters that may say: wanted dead or alive. Now, the Saudis hate Osama bin Laden, at least the ruling family does. The Iranians hate him. The Russians hate him. First of all, is it the right thing to do, to go after him? And second of all, with that array of forces against him, can it be done?

Alexander: Number one, obviously because he is a symbol, he is a symbol [that] unites Muslims throughout the world who live in his interpretation of Islam. It does not really represent Islam. And the problem is not Islam. The problem is terrorism, because he is using these tactics in violation of international law. Now, even if he is being extradited, even if he is apprehended, or is killed, we are going to have others who are going to take his place. You can kill a person. You can not kill an idea. You cannot kill a concept, which really means that they are going to have others who are going to follow his teaching and his messages that were pronounced many times, that they are going to strike against the Muslim countries that they consider corrupt, that they are not following the true interpretation of Islam, like Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Algeria, or whatever. So, in other words, his challenge, first and foremost, is against Islamic countries, and, secondly, against the West, the United States in particular, because the United States protects these Islamic countries.

Host: What I understand from his ideology, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that actually the first priority is driving the crusader forces, which he calls the U-S troops in Saudi Arabia, out of the holy places. Number two, toppling those Arabic regimes you've just mentioned. And then, number three, the destruction of Israel. Does that sound right?

Rubin: I did actually have an interesting conversation in front of the interior ministry with a bunch of Taleban where they were telling me what we need to do is to drive Israel into the sea. I said who are you to say that -- because this is what, in their interpretations, good Muslims will do; it's a false interpretation, but that's what they were told -- and I said if Syria and Jordan and the Palestinians and the Egyptians are willing to negotiate with the Israelis, who are you to say that we should drive them all into the sea and replace these regimes. I said that's no different than what the Soviets did when they came into Kabul. That started a whole another argument, but there is that irony that what the Taleban have been trying to do is impose a very rigid and, to a great extent, false version of Islam, corrupted with the Pashtunwali, the ethnic code, upon an extremely diverse group of people that don't want anything to do with it.

Host: But it's not only misinformation about that and Islam, but about other things. For instance, in an interview a couple of years ago, bin Laden said the following about U-S military presence in Saudi Arabia. He said, "their presence has no meaning, save one. And that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula, which they intend to make an important part of the so-called greater Israel. One of two things, you have to be a lunatic to say this, or you have to be using it as deliberate propaganda. Which is it?

Alexander: It's both because, I think, it's madness. It's not realistic. Even if Israel had not existed, you would have that challenge of the bin Laden interpretation of Islam against Muslim countries, against Egypt. The groups affiliated with bin Laden, they assassinated President [Anwar] Sadat. And they tried to assassinate [Hosni] Mubarak, and so on. The point I'm making is that if you have a cause, you can mobilize all kinds of rationalizations in order to justify what you are doing. And I think the international community is facing now the moment of truth: no longer tolerance of terrorism from anywhere. And, I think, we have to communicate the message around the world, whether it is terrorism coming from bin Laden or others, that terrorism against one is terrorism against all. Why? Because we have to keep in mind that, tomorrow, the entire world is going to be hijacked -- the escalation of biological, chemical, and nuclear, as well as cyber terrorism.

Host: Do you think President Bush has been effective in communicating that very message?

Alexander: I think that's a beginning, but it would take a great patience, a great deal of work to mobilize the international community to stop those madmen, if you will, or those who believe that they can intimidate and terrorize the whole world.

Host: Let me ask the two of you. Do you think that the United States is taking the right approach, as President Bush attempts to organize this coalition and prepare the American people for what Yonah Alexander has described as a long sustained campaign?

Fairbanks: In general, yes. But I wonder if, as in the Clinton administration, there isn't too much emphasis right out in front on Osama bin Laden. And that's both a question of his role and a tactical question. As far as his role goes, I do not believe he could have done what he did without significant state support.

Host: Afghan?

Fairbanks: Probably from Iraq. I think it is the likeliest country. Certainly, during an earlier period, from Sudan. From Pakistan, at least, indirectly, because Pakistan protects Taleban and Taleban protects Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan is a very, very primitive country. And the elaborate planning of this operation and the training, particularly the training in flying an airplane at low levels, I think they could have gotten only in an orderly, fairly rich country.

Host: Which was here, for some of them. I'm afraid that's all the time we have this week. I'd like to thank our guests -- Yonah Alexander from the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; Michael Rubin from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Charles Fairbanks from the Johns Hopkins University - for joining me to discuss striking back at terrorists. This is Robert Reilly for On the Line.