The US president has tough choices to make, writes Julian Borger in Washington
President George W Bush faced a defining moment in his presidency this week, only eight months after taking office, as he sought to muster an international coalition against the terrorists responsible for Tuesday’s devastating onslaught.
Talking to reporters after a meeting of the national security council, the president warned Americans that they face a drawn-out battle with their terrorist enemies.
“The American people need to know we’re facing a different enemy than we have ever faced. This enemy hides in shadows and has no regard for human life,” Bush said. “This is an enemy who preys on innocent and unsuspecting people, then runs for cover, but it won’t be able to run for cover forever. This battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win.”
In girding for that battle, Bush followed the example of his father, whom he consulted late on Tuesday night, according to White House officials. Just as the elder George Bush mustered a broad coalition in preparation for the Gulf war, so his son pledged yesterday to “rally the world”.
The president began that effort soon after 7am Washington time on Wednesday, in a conversation with his closest European ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He also talked to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien before meeting his national security advisers. Meanwhile, his secretary of state, Colin Powell, spent much of Wednesday morning telephoning other world leaders to build a coordinated response to what he called an “assault against the civilised world”.
Having been offered an extraordinary pledge of support from Nato on Wednesday, Bush still faces tough choices as he weighs his response, with his room for manoeuvre restricted by the conflicting pressures of a public demand for quick and visible justice and the mercurial nature of the adversary.
If Osama bin Laden is found to have masterminded the attacks, Bush’s options range from a combination of diplomatic pressure on Afghanistan and more effective anti-terrorist to full-scale military intervention. Those choices could be described as follows:
l Intensifying pressure on Afghanistan’s Taliban’s rulers in an attempt to squeeze Bin Laden from his lair, while toughening terrorist defences and trying to burrow into their networks. This could be the most practical solution and the Taliban has dropped hints in the past that it might be prepared to do a deal to hand over Bin Laden in return for recognition of the regime. Such diplomatic tactics could arguably be more effective than they have been until now, if the international community is united behind them. But the isolationist Taliban is far from united over the need for acceptance from the West.
l Targeting suspected terrorist training camps with cruise missiles the response favoured by Bill Clinton after the 1998 bombing of US embassies in east Africa. While such air strikes normally involve zero casualties, they are a blunt instrument of limited effectiveness. The Clinton air strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan inflicted little if any damage on al-Qaida, Bin Laden’s organisation, and caused considerable “collateral damage”.
l Deployment of troops to Afghanistan and elsewhere to kill or seize Bin Laden and his lieutenants. If successful, such a mission would be the most effective way of dealing with the immediate threat to the US, but it would carry the high risk of US casualties.
l A multinational taskforce convened under Article 5 of the Nato charter that commits every member of the alliance to protect all others. Such a force would be deployed to invade all or part of Aghanistan. The anxiety at the back of any military strategist’s mind must be the danger of becoming bogged down in the Afghan mountains as the Soviet army did 20 years ago.
As he makes his choice, Bush will be keenly aware that US public opinion has rarely demonstrated the stamina necessary for a protracted struggle.
He is already under fire from critics in his own party for failing to return immediately to Washington once the hijackings got under way. Instead he was swept off by the secret service to a military base in Louisiana and then to the highly fortified strategic air command facility in Nebraska, before returning in the evening to Washington, once political considerations got the better of security anxieties.
Bush faces hard choices quite aware that his mandate is fragile and that the Republican party is depending on him to show resolve ahead of next year’s congressional elections.
He has prided himself hitherto on choosing strong personalities as advisers and on his willingness to delegate responsibilities to them. This time, however, he is likely to face contradictory advice from different members of his immediate circle. This time, he will have to decide, and his presidency could ultimately be judged on the choices he makes.