[iwar] [fc:]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-26 22:08:16


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2391-1001567300-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 348 invoked by uid 510); 27 Sep 2001 05:08:37 -0000
Received: from n14.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.64) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 05:08:37 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2391-1001567300-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.53] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2001 05:08:20 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 27 Sep 2001 05:08:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 50036 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 05:08:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 05:08:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 05:08:19 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id WAA02264 for iwar@onelist.com; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:08:16 -0700
Message-Id: <200109270508.WAA02264@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ANALYSIS: Consequences of U.S. strike on Afghanistan could be severe
Copyright Christian Science Monitor Service
WASHINGTON

- With the first riposte in an international war on terrorism apparently
drawing nearer each day, a quiet chorus of diplomatic, anti-terror and
Middle East experts is warning the United States that the consequences
of military action could be severe. 

Over recent days, support has solidified in several key governments -
including those of Pakistan, Europe and China - for the U.S.  to take
some military action against Afghanistan's Taliban government.  At the
same time, military action that is too broad, hits civilians, or is seen
widely as an attack on Islamic countries could severely deteriorate
America's lot in the Middle East and South Asia, experts warn. 

The result could be inflamed opinions of America in regions that already
view the U.S.  negatively, the spawning of more terrorists to fill No. 
1 target Osama bin Laden's ranks, and even the overthrow of friendly
regimes in favor of more hostile ones. 

Few voices, at home or abroad, appear to hold that no military response
is appropriate for the Sept.  11 attacks in New York and Washington. 
This reflects not only the universal opprobrium the attacks have met,
but also some support for the idea of the U.S.  aiding rebellious
Afghanis to oust the Taliban. 

But as the Bush administration weighs the risks of military action,
there is unease that it may give the long-term impact of war short
shrift.  Others see not enough soul searching over conditions that feed
international terrorism - ranging from U.S.  support for unpopular
regimes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

"Our first priority has to be not to create more enemies than we already
have," says Daniel Benjamin, a counter-terrorism expert who served in
the National Security Council in the Clinton administration.  Joining
other analysts in emphasizing Pakistan, he says actions that destabilize
the already weak regime of the country's military ruler, Gen.  Pervez
Musharraf, could lead to a much less friendly regime in Pakistan - a
country with nuclear-arms capabilities. 

While calling some military action "the necessary response for a country
deeply wounded," Benjamin says that an ill-conceived war presents
extraordinary risks.  "If we turn the Afghanis into martyrs, we'll have
extreme problems in the moderate Islamic world."

President Bush's advisers are discussing the dangers of military
strikes, with the Defense Department's civilian administrators,
including Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
taking the most hawkish stand. 

At the other end of the scale are State Department officials, including
Secretary Colin Powell, who caution that broad military strikes could
upset allies - such as Egypt and Indonesia - that the U.S.  wants to
keep on board in the antiterrorism war. 

Wolfowitz and Defense Department advisers, including analyst Richard
Perle, a member of the Defense Review Board, favor extending the
military campaign to countries like Iraq. 

Other officials temper that by saying proof of a country's links to
terrorists who are acting against the U.S.  should be found first. 
Still other analysts say the U.S.  will come up short unless it
approaches this battle as essentially a struggle between ways of
thinking.  "We can't counter people's minds with smart bombs and
missiles," says Jerrold Post, a political psychologist who was consulted
extensively by the American government during the Gulf War.  "This is as
much a war of words as a war of bombs."

The "genius" of Islamic terrorist bin Laden has been to focus economic
despair and dissatisfaction with authoritative regimes - widespread in
the Arab and Islamic worlds - on the U.S.  "It becomes a moral
imperative to strike the U.S.," Post says. 

To counter extremists' attraction, Post says, the U.S.  must do more to
discourage potential recruits from joining terrorist groups, while
promoting dissension within those groups. 

Some negative consequences of military action are probably unavoidable,
says terrorism expert Martha Crenshaw.  But she adds that the U.S.  will
lose sight of long-term goals to its peril. 

"We won't be able to do all that we want to do at once," she says, but a
"war" in the short term makes other aspects of that struggle against
terrorism - "alleviating poverty, addressing grievances, and reducing
anti-Americanism" - more difficult. 

Some analysts, warning against overreliance on a military solution to
terrorism, see encouraging signs that a consideration of risks is
playing a key part in the Bush administration's deliberations.  For
example, experts say Rumsfeld's acknowledgment that referring to the
military campaign as "infinite justice" was potentially offensive to
Muslims indicates sensitivity to the U.S.  impact on the region. 

Others say Bush's own words are beginning to suggest that the U.S. 
wants to retaliate militarily in a way that avoids making matters worse. 
Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the University of Maryland,
found reassurance in Bush's speech last Thursday, in which the president
said the target is terrorist organizations "with global reach."

"There are always risks to military intervention, but not as grave as
when the definition of what we are going after had been much broader,"
says Telhami. 

What no one suggests is that the right calibration of a military
response will be easy to develop. 

"We don't want to fight the jihad (holy war), but we have to do what we
have to do," says Benjamin.  "It's an extraordinary challenge."


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:50 PDT