GlobalSecurity.org In the News

Aggressive response likely, analysts say

By Michael Kranish and John Donnelly

WASHINGTON - The US military looked ineffectual when it took action against Osama bin Laden in the wake of two bombing attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. US-launched cruise missile strikes on camps in the Afghan desert missed bin Laden, and there was no sign the terrorists were put out of business.

This time, President Bush has vowed, retaliation will be sure and thorough. Things will be different, he said. But can they be?

While there has been no public announcement that bin Laden is behind the attacks in New York and Washington Tuesday, a US official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed yesterday that the government believes that all the alleged hijackers were connected to the Saudi-born radical.

If the United States determines bin Laden is behind the attacks, military analysts say the US response is likely to be of greater magnitude than the 1998 missile attacks on an Afghan camp and a Sudan pharmaceutical factory.

Bush said Tuesday night that the United States would consider any nation that harbors terrorists fully culpable in the attacks. That raised the possibility that the United States would bomb a host country, possibly Afghanistan, if it is determined that the country harbored the perpetrators or their sponsors.

Afghan leaders appear to be acting on that premise. Pakistani intelligence sources told the Washington Post that the ruling Taliban militia is bracing for an imminent US attack, sending its top leader into hiding and repositioning its military hardware throughout the country.

Still, the most important new element in a US response could be a long-term commitment to go after terror groups and their host organizations in a much more methodical and aggressive fashion, using skilled commando teams and high-tech weaponry.

If bin Laden is indeed the mastermind behind the attacks, finding him will not be easy, said Stanley Bedlington, a former senior analyst in the CIA's counter-terrorism unit. Bin Laden mostly lives in a variety of underground bunkers and moves every couple of days.

''He is in a mountainous country with huge cave networks and he is almost certainly underground,'' Bedlington said. ''Finding an appropriate target will be very, very difficult.''

The United States does not recognize the Taliban government that controls most of Afghanistan and may have limited intelligence available in the country and within the bin Laden organization. James R. Lilly, a former senior CIA official and former US ambassador to China, said he is not aware of any CIA intelligence officers operating in Afghanistan and he blamed that partly on the United States' reluctance to use sources who may normally be unacceptable.

For example, Lilly said that the United States will not deal with sources who have committed human rights violations. That policy may have to end, Lilly said. ''We have got a lot of soul-searching to do,'' Lilly said. ''The problem is not personnel or funds. It is lack of talent and experience and ruthlessness.''

John Pike, a director of a group called globalsecurity.org, which analyzes intelligence and defense issues, said the United States would have ''snatched'' bin Laden long ago if his location were known. Given that failure, if the United States is convinced that bin Laden directed the latest attacks, the United States should try to force the Taliban in Afghanistan to either turn him over or face the consequences, Pike said.

''The case can be put to the Taliban that if you don't cough him up we will regard his action as being your action and, even if we can't blow him up, we could sure blow you up,'' Pike said. As Bush sorts through the information gathered by US intelligence, he will face two opposing views on how to carry out justice.

One camp says past US military strikes against suspected terrorists have been carried out with too little evidence and violate the civil rights held dear by US citizens. This group is appalled at the action against bin Laden in the wake of the bombings of the US embassies in Africa.

The other camp believes that, in such matters, the burden of proof can fall far short of what is required in a US court of law, and that the only effective way to respond to terrorism is to strike back with lethal force.

Graham Allison, director of Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former assistant secretary of defense, advocates going slow now based on past experiences. ''I think we need to take a deep breath in order to make sure we don't do anything stupid, since we unfortunately have a long history of errors after having been attacked,'' Allison said.

But Robert Livingstone, a counter-terrorism specialist and chairman of GlobalOptions, an international risk management firm, said that past US responses have depended too much on strict adherence to the US rule of law. He said that a quick military response would be far more effective than ''taking people to court five years after the event.''

''To those who shelter these terrorists and the terrorists themselves, the US government should be giving out hunting licenses today against all the suspects identified. If we go back to business as usual, this will happen again,'' Livingstone said.