By Jack A. Smith Mid-Hudson National People’s Campaign, 10/05/01
What is the Bush administration really up to in its declared “war on terrorism?” There is cause to doubt the recent emphasis of “measured reasonableness” now embellishing White House war plans.
In his bellicose speech soon after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, President Bush indicated he planned to attack Afghanistan and probably several other countries over the next few years. Key administration figures immediately began informing the press that the U.S. might war against Iraq and other “rogue states” that have long been on Washington’s hit list.
In recent days, however, the White House has softened its rhetoric, at least in public. The talk of an open-ended several-year “war” has been muffled. Now the talk is about a limited war against the Afghan government. What’s up?
Obviously, the Bush administration is aware that the broad coalition it is constructing may fall apart if the U.S. appears too belligerent at this stage. The Arab nations and most of the European allies have made it clear they do not want a long series of wars or massive retaliation against one or more states. Also, it is apparent that U.S. antiwar forces are gathering swiftly and could eventually pose political problems for the White House.
But has the administration given up on the kind of massive retaliation Bush first promised a couple of week ago? It doesn’t seem so. An indication of what is going on appeared in the New York Times Oct. 4 in a front-page story by veteran Washington correspondent R.W. Apple Jr. He wrote:
“Carefully limited military action against Afghanistan may well begin some time this month, ranking officials here and in London say, but much about it remains uncertain....For the moment, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appears to have won the big argument [within the administration] about the scope of the action [he wanted a more limited war, at least at first--JS]. What policy makers call ‘the Powell option’--concentrating the first phase of operations on Osama bin Laden, the suspected terrorist leader, and on his network--has prevailed over the broader approach, possibly involving an attempt to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and others.
“But the question is likely to be reopened later, if Mr. bin Laden can be effectively dealt with. Mr. Wolfowitz has been quiet lately, at least in public, but allies on the Republican right, such as William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Richard Perle, a former State Department official, have kept up the pressure. A Powell ally said, ‘This dispute will be invented and reinvented in months and years to come.’”
Thus, while President Bush appears preoccupied at the moment with a “limited military action against Afghanistan” and the removal of its government, the split within the administration remains to be resolved. Influential Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz’s boss, and Vice President Cheney, are assumed to entertain visions of a more adventurist policy. Rumsfeld is openly discussing a long-term "Cold War," punctuated by more dramatic military encounters when desired. At the same time, the Israeli government is now warning against a Bush administration response that will be “soft on terrorists.” Times warhawk columnist William Safire, in the same issue with Appel’s article, criticized the possibility that the U.S. would go after bin Laden and the Afghanistan government, but might not launch “protective strikes” against Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, as many on the right are insisting. This reactionary clamor will intensify in time.
Afghanistan evidently is target number one--but today’s less inflammatory rhetoric from Washington does not rule out an eventual target number two, three or more. Indeed, a more focused approach now may make probable a “broader” approach later.
(end)