Military

DATE=10/08/01

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=ANTI-TERROR WAR

NUMBER=6-12492

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=YES

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: The far-reaching attacks by the United States and British forces against military installations of the Taleban and al-Qaida, the Osama bin-Laden terror organization, are drawing comments from throughout the U-S press. The reaction is favorable from papers with many differing editorial philosophies, as we hear now from V-O-A's ___________ with today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: Most papers are backing the attacks and at the same time, praising the humanitarian efforts to get food and medical supplies to the Afghan people. And still others are warning readers to be especially alert for potential new terrorist attacks here at home. The Washington Times says of the air and missile attacks:

VOICE: President Bush's decision to launch Sunday's raids was an inevitable and morally justified response to a war against America that was declared by Osama bin Laden and his cohorts long ago. ... This campaign against terrorism will almost certainly claim additional allied casualties, both military and civilian. ... As Mr. Bush said in the benediction of his address [announcing the attacks] "We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."

TEXT: The Wall Street Journal talks in part, about the difficulty of the attack and the precision needed.

VOICE: The complex political nature of the task is clear from the early bombing targets. They are carefully chosen military targets, intended to cripple command and control and air defenses but also to minimize Afghan civilian casualties. This is in direct moral contrast to the terrorist method, which seeks to kill as many civilians as possible as at the World Trade Center.

Mr. Bush pointed out the extraordinary fact that the U-S is airlifting food and medicine to the Afghan people at the same time it is bombing their Taleban rulers. The humanitarian effort also underscores that these strikes are not aimed at Islam but against bin Laden's perversion of that religion. It should be obvious by now that the Taleban have earned whatever fate they suffer.

TEXT: The views of Monday's [10-08] Wall Street Journal.

Reaching back into American history, The Saint Louis [Missouri] Post-Dispatch writes:

VOICE: Like their ancestors on the Lexington green, the pilots over Afghanistan have fired a short heard around the world. It is once again a shot fired for freedom, this time on behalf of civilization's war to be free from the face and the fear of terrorism.

TEXT: "And so it begins" reads the [New York] Daily News editorial, continuing:

VOICE: We cannot know when it will end. We do know it will not end until international terrorism is wiped off the face of the Earth it has so long defiled.

TEXT: In New London, Connecticut, home of the U-S submarine fleet, The Day calls the attacks "A proper military action," and calls for "calm determination from the American people." Deep in the Great Plains, The [Grand Forks, North Dakota] Herald says the president has earned Americans' support for his measured and careful response, adding that he has inspired "great confidence... now that the fighting has begun."

"A new and more dangerous phase of America's counterattack," is how today's New York Times describes it.

VOICE: ... a moment we have expected ever since September eleventh. The American people, despite their grief and anger, have been patient as they waited for action. Now ... they will support whatever efforts it takes to carry out this mission properly.

TEXT: "Unrelished but necessary" is the way The Los Angeles Times describes the attack on the Taleban and the bin Laden organization. It also comments on the videotaped statement from Osama bin Laden tht was released following the first wave of the attack.

VOICE: ... in a chilling statement ... [Mr.] bin Laden... tried to portray the fight as one between Muslims and American" infidels" and "apostates." He said God carried out the September eleventh carnage and there would be no peace until the U-S withdrew from Saudi Arabia, site of the holiest shrines in Islam, and stopped backing Israel. [Mr.] bin Laden's rationalization ... was virtually an admission of his culpability.

TEXT: In the nation's capital, The Washington Post also comments on the attack:

VOICE: Though the risks are surely higher, so is the justification and sense of purpose with which the United States begins this Afghan campaign... a legitimate act of self-defense directed against the sponsors of the bloodiest attack ever against the U-S homeland.

TEXT: Worried about a wider conflict, New Hampshire's Manchester Union Leader says: "...the trick will be to keep it from becoming the first worldwide conflict in the 21st century." Denver's [Colorado] Post sums up its feelings with this headline: "Civilization strikes back." In the Pacific Ocean, Honolulu's Advertiser says Monday this will be "a new kind of war [calling] for patience [and] resilience."

The New York Post warns "It would be unwise to overestimate their [the air strikes] impact - - for the targets in Afghanistan are sparse, mobile and resilient. The Akron [Ohio] Beacon Journal says "Go get 'em'" in its headline, while Charleston's [South Carolina] Post and Courier calls the attacks: "...a promising start to a prolonged campaign to protect the civilized world from ruthless terrorists."

From Boise, The Idaho Statesman is pleased at the U-S humanitarian effort in Afghanistan.

VOICE: ...while military forces are aggressively going after the terrorist network, it's comforting - - and appropriate - - that humanitarian aid will continue. Appropriately, the president makes it clear ... the enemy is the Taleban ... not the people of Afghanistan.

TEXT: Today's Kansas City [Missouri] Star suggests: "The Taleban rulers brought this devastation on themselves by continuing to shelter its terrorists in spite of ample warnings from the United States and Britain..." And in Wisconsin, Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel warns:

VOICE: Now that military strikes have begun, it is especially critical that America accelerate domestic security measures consistent with constitutional principles. On Sunday, for example, the F-B-I ... urged local law enforcement authorities to move to their highest state of alert.

TEXT: On a related theme, The Honolulu [Hawaii] Star Bulletin advises readers to be especially alert from now on, calling police about anything suspicious. "We are all soldiers in the war on terror" it suggests. Today's Dallas Morning News says former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, the man in charge of the new Homeland Security office, will need ample power to effectively coordinate homeland defense.

Noting that some Americans oppose a military response, The Oregonian in Portland is worried about having their "right to protest" protected. Southern California's Orange County [Santa Anna] Register is concerned about the potential for abridgement of civil liberties as the government seeks new powers to fight terrorism.

The Philadelphia Inquirer says that while "Military strikes take center stage, ... diplomacy, [and] refugee relief remain vital." And of the president's decision, it adds:

VOICE: Some will argue he waited too long; others, not long enough. But the weeks-long interval between atrocity and military response strongly rebuts any claim that America lashed out blindly in rage or vengeance.

TEXT: USA Today, the national daily published in a Washington suburb, says of the attack:

VOICE: It was a smart and carefully crafted beginning - - not so much a calibration of U-S power, which has invited failure so often before, as a decision to apply that power aggressively in an unconventional way. What is less clear as the battle of Afghanistan begins is just what victory will look like. ... more clarity will soon be needed, and if [President] Bush's overall war goals are to be met, the requirements for victory in Afghanistan seem as unavoidable as they are difficult.

TEXT: In a page-wide editorial, The Orlando [Florida] Sentinel calls the attacks: "America's right response" adding: "[The] U-S military strikes show the resolve needed for the war against terrorism." Adding:

VOICE: ... Americans should be sobered, as well as inspired. As President ... Bush ...correctly emphasized, this military action represents merely the beginning of a long and difficult conflict. Americans should brace themselves for future terrorist attacks.

TEXT: And in equally sobering tones, The Sun in Baltimore comments:

VOICE: Americans must expect casualties among U-S forces and innocent civilians, no matter how hard the allies try to avoid them. Americans must also expect no speedy conclusion or splashy [Editors: "conclusive or colorful"] victories.

TEXT: On that note, we conclude this sampling of comment on military installations of the Taleban and al-Qaida, the Osama bin-Laden terror organization.

NEB/ANG/FC