GlobalSecurity.org In the News

The pathways to vengeance
From the White House to the hinterlands, Americans ponder retribution

By James W. Crawley

How do we fight back? That question is on the lips of every American, from the President to Joe Six-Pack. The voices of experienced combat leaders and armchair generals call for raining down Tomahawk cruise missiles on suspected Islamic terrorist Osama bin Laden, using government assassins, carpet-bombing Afghanistan and its Taliban fundamentalist Islamic regime, even invading the Mideast.

But the United States doesn't know for certain whom to hit, much less how. And what would be the diplomatic and political consequences of a military counterstrike? All that's clear so far is that there are many options, and significant risks attached to each of them.

Meanwhile, San Diego area military bases, ships and personnel remained on highest alert. Off the coast, cruisers and destroyers, armed with anti-aircraft missiles, guarded the San Diego, Los Angeles and Seattle areas, in case of further airborne terrorist attacks. Fighters provided additional protection.

Since Tuesday's terrorist attacks, suspicion has focused on bin Laden, the renegade Saudi millionaire who has been waging a terror campaign against the United States since the 1990s. No one in the White House or military will talk on the record about possible military responses, but President Bush and members of the Cabinet sound like characters in the film "Gladiator," who were resolved to "unleash Hell."

A Bush administration counterattack against the plotters of Tuesday's attack and their host countries will likely have strong backing at home and abroad. The overwhelming majority of Americans are willing to risk war to hunt down and punish those who ordered Tuesday's attacks, as well as punishing the nations that harbor them, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Before the attacks can be answered, however, experts said the United States first must be clear on who ordered them and from where. Said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington: "We . . . need to fully understand who is responsible, not simply blame Osama bin Laden or Iraq or whoever else is convenient." Striking impulsively and hitting innocent parties could cause a diplomatic and terrorist backlash against the United States, Cordesman said.

But assigning blame is only the beginning. U.S. intelligence will then have to track down the terrorist leadership. "That's the needle-in-the-haystack aspect of the problem," said Steven Aftergood, an intelligence analyst for the Federation of American Scientists. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. intelligence community has relied more on electronic and photo reconnaissance satellites and less on spies on the ground. Terrorist groups, clandestine and clannish by nature, are harder to track that way.

Once they've been pinpointed, the military could then strike. And as the most powerful military in the world, the Pentagon has a large arsenal and a long reach. Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched by surface ships or submarines, can travel 1,000 miles and hit within several feet of their target. Navy and Marine Corps jets launched from aircraft carriers can range several hundred miles inland.

"There's a lot of carriers out there and that's 41/2 acres of American sovereign territory," said national security analyst John Pike. The Navy already has two carrier battle groups in or near the Persian Gulf and within a few days steaming of Tomahawk launch sites off Pakistan. Several San Diego-based warships, the cruisers Princeton and Antietam, both armed with Tomahawks, are part of the carrier Vinson battle group.

B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, older B-1 and elderly B-52 bombers, which have nearly worldwide range with refueling, could drop satellite-guided bombs from high altitude. Army troops and Marines could be used in an all-out assault, but experts were unanimous that such large-scale invasions would be unlikely. Covert action using Army Special Forces, Rangers, Navy SEALs or the so-called Delta Force anti-terrorism squad also is an option.

But each action has problems and consequences, experts said. Past cruise missile attacks against terrorist groups, including bin Laden, have been ineffectual. Bombing by manned aircraft runs the risk of American pilots being shot down and captured. And even if such attacks were successful, they might not be enough.

"The U.S. standard has been to hit them with Tomahawks," said George Friedman, chairman of Stratfor, a private intelligence firm based in Austin, Texas. "That will be a nice symbolic gesture, but that's not going to work this time politically." To be a success, Cordesman said, "We must attack and kill the leaders of the movements responsible."

Covert strikes, either by special operations units or CIA assassins, can be high risk and would require a change in the U.S. law that bans assassinations. Getting large troop units within striking range would involve long-range, risky flights over hostile territory. Such a flight ended in disaster in the 1980 attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran.

Besides targeting people, Aftergood said, the U.S. government might try targeting the terrorists' finances and infrastructure. Whatever option Washington chooses, it must score a clear, decisive victory, experts warned. But even that wouldn't necessarily mean an end to terrorism, they said. Several experts warned that terrorist attacks will likely continue. American retaliation could lead to a protracted and costly war, they said. "Every path we have is risky," said Stratfor's Friedman.

Staff writer Gregory Alan Gross contributed to this report.