[iwar] [fc:Bush.Rethinks.Principles.For.'Different.Kind.Of.War']

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-16 09:21:52
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Military.Secrets.Posted.on.Internet]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:New.hackers.wreak.havoc]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110161621.JAA20511@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Bush.Rethinks.Principles.For.'Different.Kind.Of.War']
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

USA Today
October 16, 2001
Bush Rethinks Principles For 'Different Kind Of War'
By Judy Keen, USA Today
WASHINGTON - During the presidential campaign, George W. Bush was
unequivocal: The United States should never deploy troops without a
"well-defined" exit strategy. Now Bush has ordered U.S. troops into an
open-ended war for which he hasn't defined a conclusion except to say that
he wants to "rid the world of evildoers." He warns in almost every speech
that Americans must be patient and that their endurance will be tested.
Aides say Bush believes that this war may not end for years, perhaps after
his tenure in the White House ends in 2005 or 2009.
"I don't care how long it takes to rout out terrorism, we're going to do
it," the president told employees at the FBI on Sept. 25.
In almost every speech he has given since the terrorist attacks, Bush has
said this is "a different kind of war." Those words are designed to dampen
the expectations of Americans hoping for swift military victories. But they
also underscore the fact that the United States is in an unforeseen war,
precipitated by unimaginable acts, that's being fought on economic,
diplomatic and covert fronts as well as conventional battlefields.
As he prepares the public for the nature and length of this conflict, the
president is rethinking his views on when to go to war, how to gauge victory
and how to deal with the aftermath:
* Vietnam taught him that "our nation should be slow to engage troops," Bush
wrote in A Charge to Keep, his 1999 autobiography. But a remote civil war
hardly compares with terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans at
home, and Bush decided within hours of the attacks that he would order
military retaliation against Osama bin Laden.
* During the campaign, Bush said he would never deploy troops without first
answering the question, "How do you end?" He says now that the war won't be
over even if bin Laden is dead and the ruling Taliban militia is removed
from power in Afghanistan, because achieving those goals would not end the
threat of terrorism.
* In a debate Oct. 3, 2000, with Al Gore, Bush said he would be "very
careful about using our troops as nation builders." The president and his
advisers still say they won't use the military to install a new government
in Afghanistan, but administration officials say military forces from the
United States or its partners would have to be used temporarily to shore up
new leadership there.
"We should not just simply leave after a military objective has been
achieved," Bush said at a news conference Thursday. Aides say Bush is
discussing how to support a successor to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,
possibly by backing creation of a coalition government.
The Cabinet secretaries who are managing the war share the president's new
elastic definitions of war and victory. "Forget about 'exit strategies' -
we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines," Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote in a Sept. 27 op-ed piece in The New York
Times. Secretary of State Colin Powell says victory will be measured in the
restoration of "a degree of security" in society and "far less" terrorism.
Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War,
seems to be amending the military doctrine that bears his name. The "Powell
Doctrine" says the United States should avoid intervening in international
conflicts unless three conditions are met: A vital national interest is in
jeopardy; there is a clear, achievable goal; and the force used is
overwhelming.
Some military analysts say Bush must write new tenets for a new kind of war.
"The Bush corollary to the Powell Doctrine is, when you've got overriding
public support and indeed impatience to do something, then end-game strategy
is not as important," says Kurt Campbell of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington. "This situation is absolutely unique,
and it's going to cause Bush and his team to reconsider" the old rules.
Administration officials have begun describing a "Bush Doctrine."
Presidential counselor Karen Hughes defined it this way: "A country that
harbors terrorists will either deliver the terrorists or share in their
fate."
That suggests that Bush and his advisers believe that this war is an ongoing
mission without a definitive ending in sight. "There's a certain impatience
with war of the past," Bush said Sept. 19. "People demand a certain clarity
of a specific battlefield. But this is a new type of struggle."
Rumsfeld says the Cold War is an appropriate comparison. There were no great
battles during decades of tensions and standoffs, but victory was won when
years of pressure forced communist regimes to collapse from within.
"We will know we have won when people are able to go about their business
... and not live in fear," Rumsfeld said.
That means success may be intangible and transitory and there may be no
triumphant celebrations to mark the war's end.
Campbell expects the war to last "through several administrations." He
compares the fight against terrorism to drugs' effect on AIDS in the body:
"It can be reduced to barely discernible levels," he says, but not
eradicated.
"We'll never fundamentally know, as part of the national psyche or through
evidence, if we've really won," he said.
Military analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, another
Washington think tank, agrees. "We never will have that parade, because
we'll be jinxing ourselves if we do," he says.
Success, O'Hanlon says, is easily described, but it may be impossible to
attain: "Prevent future Sept. 11ths: There is no other definition of
victory."
Many expect fight to last a long time
How long do you think the fighting in Afghanistan will last?
A few weeks or less -- 10%; Several months -- 34%; A year or two -- 26%;
More than two years -- 22%; No opinion -- 8% (Source: USA Today/CNN/Gallup
Poll of 660 adults Oct. 7. Margin of error: +4 percentage points.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Military.Secrets.Posted.on.Internet]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:New.hackers.wreak.havoc]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:55 PST