Military

DATE=10/06/2001

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-00996

TITLE=ON THE LINE:WINNING A WAR AGAINST 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, "Winning a War against Terrorists." Here is your host, Robert Reilly.

Host: Hello and Welcome to On the Line. President George W. Bush has declared war against international terrorism. The organization responsible for the September 11th attacks against the United States appears to be al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden. President Bush said, "there are thousands of these terrorists in more than sixty countries." As part of the strategy to defeat them, President Bush said "we will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism." The United States has already deployed nearly thirty-thousand military personnel, several aircraft carrier battle groups, and several hundred aircraft.

Joining me today to discuss the campaign against international terrorists and the states that support them are two experts. Kenneth Pollack is the deputy director for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former staff member of the National Security Council. And William Odom is the director of national security studies at the Hudson Institute and former director of the National Security Agency. Welcome to the program.

Host: Kenneth Pollack, you had a very illuminating piece in the Wall Street Journal several weeks ago, in which you were spelling out a strategy against terrorism. Do you think the United States now has all the correct elements in place to go to war against international terrorism?

Pollack: So far, the Bush Administration has done a marvelous job in putting together all of the pieces that we are going to need to engage in what's really going to be a global effort, which will feature diplomacy and intelligence operations, as much, probably more so, than actual military operations. I don't know if any of us can say whether they are ready to go right now, but all the pieces are starting to come together on the chessboard.

Host: Bill Odom, do you agree?

Odom: I agree with that assessment, basically. I would say, if you know about the conditions of some aspects of our government, you would say they are not ready. But they are ready to begin to fix a group of things that needed to be fixed a long time ago. Let me give you an example. There are, in control of our borders, there at least nine agencies, probably more, that have a role in controlling the borders. They are spread through at least five cabinet offices, and it's no wonder that information in the hands of one agency did not get to another, and that they were unable to anticipate what was going to happen on September 11th. That kind of reorganization will take a while. But it will be important and it will help us deal not only with terrorism, but also with immigration problems, drug problems, and other kinds of things. Another example I think is in counter-intelligence. Counter-intelligence is highly fragmented in the U-S. There is no way to get a comprehensive picture. The F-B-I has its parochial picture, the military services have their parochial picture, and the C-I-A has its independent picture. I have recommended once in a reform study about three years ago that we create a national counter-intelligence service. Take that function away from the F-B-I because crime and law enforcement don't work well when it's mixed with C-I [counter-intelligence]. You get crime, dealings with crime, but you don't get the most effective C-I. So I think those are two examples of the kinds of changes that I think you will see them either doing as I have described them or some equivalent.

Host: Then you think the new cabinet position for homeland defense might effect those reforms?

Pollack: Absolutely. I don't think there is any question. I think that General Odom is absolutely right. There is a series of very long-term issues here that we need to deal with. Just to expand the scope a little bit, we built the intelligence community that we have pretty much in 1947, based on our experience of Pearl Harbor, the Second World War. And then of course we developed it over the course of time to deal with the Soviet Union, which was a big conventional military threat, and we developed an intelligence community that was based to deal with that. It was designed to feed the President and the national security policy-making apparatus, and to feed a hierarchic military that was ready to go to war with this other hierarchic military. Now we've got a completely different set of threats out there. It's a very kind of postmodern threat. It's decentralized, it's geographically dispersed, and we need a military and an intelligence capability that is also capable of dealing with a dispersed decentralized adversary. And so a lot of changes, such as what General Odom is talking about, are going to need to happen. The homeland defense coordinator would seem to be a good place to start making those kinds of changes.

Host: With these terrorists spread out in the al-Qaida network in, as they say, fifty to sixty countries, how do you use the various levers in various places? You've mentioned the tools are diplomatic, the tools are political, they are military, there are intelligence tools. In each of these cases, do you just treat them separately, and see which tool applies where, the best?

Odom: Traditionally, since World War Two, and we developed this in World War Two, and we made it statutory state of affairs in 1947 with the National Security Act. The National Security Council is the mechanism for doing this, and this is a very flexible organization. It allows you to pick any agency that has a piece of the responsibility. And if the President wants to do it, he can at least make sure that they are talking to one another, and that they are bringing what they are doing, the perspective, into councils where he hears about it, and they are unambiguous as to what he thinks and what the White House wants them to do. There can still be problems of coordination out there. But at that level, I think that is the most important level to start getting a common policy. Then, at lower levels, interagency cross-gapping, your coordination, will have to take place. And, I think that will be a learning process. I think that will go fairly rapidly. I think what will be more difficult are these changes that require fundamental -- new statues, new laws.

Host: Let's concentrate first of all on the character on this enemy. Osama bin Laden announced that there is no question, and I am quoting him, "there is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable." And we know about his orders for any Muslim to kill any American anywhere. What is the character of this conflict, Ken Pollack, in the sense of what this man's political objectives might be, and how we ought to be wary of responding in such a way that actually helps him meet some of those objectives -- particularly if it is to create this so-called clash of civilizations and alarming the Muslim world against the West?

Pollack: I think you are hitting on some of the key themes here, Bob, which is that in terms of his goals, it's crude to say, but bin Laden's most important goal is to kill Americans. He taps into a well, a reservoir, of hatred in the Arab world, which was born of a lot of different things, but which is directed itself against us. I think actually the President's words that you quoted at the beginning of the program really give a good blueprint for the best way to handle this, which is to get the entire network on the run. We need to stop fixating on bin Laden himself, and on what he's got in Afghanistan. That's an important part -- I don't want to dismiss it -- but it is hardly the whole thing. And if all we do is concentrate on getting him, and maybe the folks who are in Afghanistan, all we're going to do is create a martyr for the rest of the network, which, as you pointed out, spans fifty to sixty countries. So, the key for us is to, first of all, get them on the run. Get them all moving, get them going underground, because their ability to attack us is going to be greatly diminished if we have them fearing for their own safety.

Host: Let me just mention a political objective that Osama bin Laden might have, as some have speculated. He wishes to overthrow all the moderate Arab regimes, most particularly Saudi Arabia. But perhaps also Pakistan, and replace it with an Islamist extremist regime, such as we see in the Taleban. Were he successful in doing that, he would have the wealth of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and also nuclear weapons. And this then could galvanize the Muslim world and lead on to the global jihad that he calls for. Do you find that feasible?

Odom: I find it a very compelling line of reasoning, and I would say that the Administration's cautious initial responses, I think, have calmed down somewhat a natural and a very understandable demand on the part of the public for some sort of dramatic action. And even, as Ken said, quite rightly, if this can be a very effective action and we can destroy bin Laden and a hundred of his closest assistants in Afghanistan. The rest of this network is there, and it is far more important than that headquarters. That headquarters can be replaced easily compared to putting this network together. And to get us to flail, and do something like this, would be a huge success [for al-Qaida]. If we actually did nothing, and looked sort of chicken about it for awhile, we probably politically would be ahead of him. Now we've got to be serious about where we are going in the longer run. And we've got to be doing these other kinds of things. But now I think the way the war has been shaped, as the President said, and the way you're hearing more and more people talk about it, I'm really impressed with an arising level of awareness, and what I'd call sophisticated understanding by people who don't make this their primary expertise. I think they catch on to it fairly quickly. And therefore, I think the President is going to have good support here. And both the Congress and the Executive, I think, are going to have a lot of latitude to pursue sensible policies.

Host: Now let me just take a moment to remind our audience that this is On The Line, and I am Robert Reilly, talking this week about "Winning a War Against Terrorists" with Ken Pollack from the Counsel on Foreign Relations and William Odom from the Hudson Institute. Tell me, Ken Pollack, it seems, along with what Bill Odom has said, that the President has concentrated tremendously on the formation of an astonishing coalition. Not only of individual states, but of international organizations behind this initiative: NATO, the Organization of American States, ANZUS, ASEAN, the U-N. The consensus is not simply in the United States overwhelming, but international. My question to you is how effective can the United States be in translating that into the kind of effective action that needs to be done to hit this network?

Pollack: I think you put your finger on the key issue for the United States, because as General Odom was just saying, really the key is getting at the network. It's not just getting at bin Laden, but it's getting at all of these groups all over the world. And when these groups start running, when they flee from one country to the next, bringing those other countries in as well. And the really hard part for the U-S is going to be convincing each one of these host countries to take what are going to be in many cases very difficult steps to root out the terrorist cells that have burrowed themselves into their societies.

Host: For instance.

Pollack: For instance, Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden is from, where he does a lot of recruiting, where we know that there are some very powerful and very wealthy Saudis who support bin Laden. It's going to be up to the Saudi government to go after those people. That's going to be very hard for them to do. In some of the European countries, many of bin Laden's operatives have done a wonderful job of secreting themselves throughout the society, making themselves citizens. And in some cases you may get into some very difficult issues in terms of civil rights. It may be necessary to cross certain lines, which those governments have not been willing to do in the past, in order to get at this network.

Odom: I agree with that. And I would just say that you will see this coalition sound very solid for a while, and then it will begin to break up. I am reminded of a comment by George Kennan many years ago, when he said some diplomatic move was the equivalent of asking all those in favor of truth to stand up. And liars were obliged to be the first on their feet. So, let's not be deceived by the initial seeming unanimity on this issue. Some people are already beginning to say "we don't know how to define terrorism," "my freedom fighter is your terrorist," and vice versa. And I think that is a real problem. I think we may have to find better words than terrorism here. We are going to have to find auxiliary words.

Host: How important did you think it was that the President was very careful to specify terrorist groups with an international reach?

Pollack: I think it was very important, for exactly the reasons that General Odom is laying out. Because I think the President is trying to say we want to define this group, who the enemy is, very carefully, because we don't want to get into those kinds of fights over who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter that could pull the coalition apart.

Odom: I think in the campaign, at periods, there will be sub-coalitions that will do things, while others stand by, and then the coalition may have to shift. And I think we will just have to put up with that. Let me make one point that I'm struck with as time goes on here. Bin Laden has pulled this incredibly heinous crime, and I guess from his point of view, this is a great success. If one moves back and takes a detached look, he's had a tactical victory. And it may prove to be a disaster for him. Because what I think it has done, at least what I have observed in the American public for the last couple of weeks, it has changed the attitude. It has generated incredible support for the presidency. It's made the President and the Congress able to do a number of things to move against these people, that it would never have been able to do with less of an impulse. So, while it may be a tactical victory, I think this may well prove to be a strategic error, blunder of the greatest kind.

Host: Please, yes.

Pollack: That may well be the greatest asset that the Administration is going to have -- and I think they have already been doing -- the Administration going to all of our allies, and in some cases countries that you wouldn't always call allies, and saying to them "the Unites States has been galvanized. We are going to do this. We are going to fight this war. You can be with us, you can be against us. But more importantly, you can help direct us. Or else we are going to start lashing out." And I think that a lot of countries have basically decided that they want to be a part of this, to help direct our efforts, because they see the tremendous strength and power which the U.S. is mobilizing.

Host: So the seriousness of American purpose that has been expressed here --

Odom: Let me give you another example of just the kind of diplomatic pressure you've got here. Many countries of who are in this coalition right now are very dependent on the inter-dependency of economic relations. If the economy in the United States begins to decline significantly -- and Europe's and Japan's are already in not very good shape -- they are going to suffer. Therefore, they have a strong interest, an economic self-interest in seeing us stay reasonably healthy. Seeing the dollar stays stable, seeing this is a market that they can sell to, that's an objective factor that helps the diplomatic side. And so, I think this is not like a traditional balance of power affair in Europe where you line up coalitions that can move freely. I think a number of countries don't have that freedom with us that has traditionally been the case that you learn in international relations books. I was really impressed with Tony Blair's speech to the Labor Party. You know he just lectured them that they're at war and the attack against the U-S is an attack against them. And to hear the Europeans saying this, and then beginning to see they may believe it, is kind of interesting. Another factor I don't think bin Laden took into account is that the members of the [United Nations] General Assembly from countries who might not be very pro-American are living right there. They experienced this [attack]. Their families have seen this, their children have seen this. They are going to have a hard time telling their families and children that this was a good thing.

Host: You also had the extraordinary statement of King Abdullah of Jordan with President Bush recently, in which he said, "what these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in. And so on those principles alone, I think it will be very, very easy for people to stand together. This is a fight against evil, and the majority of Arabs and Muslims will band together with our colleagues all over the world to be able to put an end to this horrible scourge of international terrorism, and you will see a united front." I wanted to ask both of you how worried are you, that once the United States and this coalition act, about the al-Qaida retaliation?

Odom: I just want to say that I have had personal messages from a number of people I've known who were diplomats or have some sort of official business status or other status in Muslim countries. And the message is coming in from them, please don't confuse this as a war on Islam. One man from a country who is not Arab insisted that it's your war with the Arabs. Others are saying it's your war with someone else. Whether they are right or not is really beside the point. The wisdom in this is not to let it become that. And it is to find people who are guilty and to support people in all these groups, Arab, Islam, or whatever, who understand that this is not a good thing.

Host: I understand that. But my question was how worried are you about bin Laden's ability to strike back at the United Sates, once we act against his network?

Odom: I think we have to assume that he can't, and I think we just have to take the damage, and show him that he can't do much to us and move on.

Host: But can he do much to us, Ken Pollack, in your estimation?

Pollack: I think he has demonstrated that he is a very clever guy. His network is very clever, very sophisticated, and has figured out ways to strike at us in ways that most nations have not been able to do. So yes, I think that we have to assume to some extent the worst. Be ready for it and, as General Odom says, be ready to take it and keep fighting the fight.

Host: The one thing we haven't talked about yet in this arrangement of means that the President has to pursue his policy, are the aircraft carrier battle groups and the troops. What are those for?

Odom: I don't know.

Pollack: I think the best place to start is again with what the President said about getting these guys on the run, making sure they have no sanctuary. Right now the most obvious sanctuary they have is Afghanistan. And I think there is some role for direct military force in trying to get the Afghans, getting the Taleban, to recognize that it is no longer in their best interests to provide a base for al-Qaida, that they have got to get them out of there. I think that is the best use that we can make of military force right now. I think it is a reasonable use. It's not going to be easy, but it is certainly a way. Couple that, and I think that we should never forget this, with the kind of diplomatic and economic pressure that we are putting on the Taleban, trying to close off all of their borders. Trying to isolate them diplomatically, you bring a combination of pressures to bear on them, which hopefully, over time, the Taleban, even Mullah Omar is going to look at this and say, "why are we suffering like this for this other guy who really doesn't have all that much to do with what we are trying to do here in Afghanistan."

Host: Do you agree about that in terms of the use of military resources, General, just in our last moment?

Odom: What Ken said, I would fully agree with. I think the way he said it leaves room for enormous discretion. And how you apply this military power there may split people who'd otherwise be against you. I can see us eventually, maybe, deciding to do something that is pretty nasty to some regime. And we may actually destroy some regime. I think Saddam [Hussein] didn't think we would try to do that. And we probably did not go far enough 1991. And I think other countries out there are going to be aware that we do have that memory from that particular time, and if I were one harboring these people, I would be a little worried about dealing with the United States.

Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have this week. I'd like to thank our guests -- Kenneth Pollack from the Council on Foreign Relations and William Odom from the Hudson Institute -- for joining me to discuss the war against international terrorists. This is Robert Reilly for On the Line.