Onenigheid in de VS over aanpak Taliban en antraxprobleem?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 25, 2001; 8:55 AM

The right is getting restless.

And the administration is getting an earful.

From the first awful moments of Sept. 11, President Bush garnered remarkable support from across the political spectrum. Conservative backing for the Republican president was virtually automatic, while most Dems also fell into line – some so enthusiastically that one former Clinton aide says they call themselves "Dubyacrats."

But the first cracks in the facade of unity are starting to appear.

Some conservative commentators are unhappy with the bombing campaign. Others are unhappy with the battle against anthrax. (No monopoly there: Just about everyone's unhappy with the government's bumbling anthrax response.)

In a sense, Bush anticipated this sort of criticism, warning Americans again and again that we were in this war for the long haul and urging the country to be patient. Dropping a bunch of bombs was not necessarily going to topple the Taliban or wipe out Osama bin Laden.

But now some columnists are saying that politics, not military strategy, is hampering the war effort – an echo of the fundamental complaint heard during Vietnam (and which Colin Powell had vowed would not happen again).

With a long, frustrating winter ahead, these complaints are likely to grow louder – and the White House can't dismiss them as mere grumbling by the liberal opposition.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry lobs one of the first grenades:

"American bombs and missiles have been hitting a lot of empty warehouses and concrete bunkers in Afghanistan. Assuming the real-estate market is still depressed there and warehouse space isn't particularly valuable, this is not a very cost-conscious way to wage war, let alone a way to win one.

"It had seemed in recent days that the administration had finally faced up to the fact that this war – despite all the complicated political questions involved – requires destroying the Taliban, which in turn means hitting their front-line troops.

"But in the Washington Post this morning, Thomas Ricks reports that the administration has decided to bomb the front-line troops only very gingerly. That 'straddle' I wrote about two weeks ago appears to live on: the Bushies can't decide whether to temporarily throw in with the Northern Alliance or not.

"And so, the administration appears to be calibrating its bombing campaign with an excruciating preciousness.

"At this point, the administration's attitude should clearly be: 'We'd like to have a political solution in place for post-Taliban Afghanistan. We probably should have thought about it sooner and harder. But we're just not going to be able to figure it out in the midst of a war. Bombs away.'"

Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes offers a similar critique:

"The word you don't want to hear from the Pentagon brass, civilian or uniformed, or from the White House is 'message.' When you do, it means that a military maneuver in Afghanistan, usually a bombing raid, may not amount to much by itself but is making a point with a terrorist, the Taliban, a member of the U.S.-led coalition, or another party involved in the war against terrorism. And it means something more as well: The American agenda in the war on terrorism is burdened with goals other than merely winning the war as quickly and decisively as possible. . . .

"The problem is dubious decisions that limit the war effort or distract from it. For instance, the Taliban has concentrated troops around Kabul and made them ripe targets for heavy bombing. But the bombing hasn't been heavy.

"Why not? Because the United States doesn't want to take Kabul yet or let the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance capture the city. That would interfere with 'nation-building' plans, currently far from complete, to patch together a broad-based, post-Taliban government in Afghanistan. And it would upset Pakistan, which opposes the Northern Alliance. Also, heavy bombing might anger Muslims everywhere. The result: The war is being prolonged, at least around Kabul.

"Might it not make sense to win the war now and worry about a new government later?"

Andrew Sullivan says we need to escalate the war against anthrax terrorists:

"This following awful scenario keeps occurring to me. If we shortly prove that biological warfare has indeed been launched upon the United States from a foreign source, what will our response be? In the past, we have had a doctrine that a biological attack upon American citizens would open the possibility of nuclear response. But against whom? How? Where?

"This is the bluff that the terrorists have just successfully called. By starting the biological war piece-meal, they have been very smart. Because the casualties are as yet minuscule, and the horror diffuse, the terrorists have managed to both break a previously unthinkable barrier in warfare and yet also avoid anything like a commensurate response. The micro-war we are witnessing is designed to avert the mass outrage that followed September 11, an outrage that has obviously hurt the terrorists badly.

"So they have tried a sneakier approach and, because of this, they have gotten away with one of their key objectives: to normalize the use of biological weapons. As of now, the government has said nothing coherent about this epochal event. . . . The terrorists have therefore won something big, and the Bush administration doesn't even seem to know how to respond.

"I can see why. If the White House were to say explicitly that it believes this weapon has been used by a named enemy, there would be enormous pressure for an appropriate response. So the administration has been confused in its public utterances, barely able to grasp what has been achieved by the enemy, seemingly unable to articulate a credible response. It seems to me that this passivity must end soon. After all, the White House itself has now been targeted with a biological weapon!

"We need the president to tell us what exactly the government believes about this anthrax attack, who is behind it, what it means, and what we are going to do in response."

Even the administration itself is unhappy with the screwups, says the New York Daily News: "For the first time since Sept. 11, the Bush high command is being criticized for its handling of the terror crisis – and many of the complaints are coming from Bush partisans worried about an appearance of confusion and drift.

"Bush's conduct of the Afghan war continues to earn high marks, even from top Democrats. But several administration officials and other Bush sources grumble that the White House has bungled the anthrax crisis with a mishmash of confusion, mixed messages and grudging disclosure.

"'We look like we don't have our act together,' one key Bush source grumped. 'The impression is being left we may not know what we're doing.' A second highly placed Bush partisan offered an even blunter assessment: 'The rookies are in charge of the anthrax piece, and they're making rookie mistakes.' . . .

"Bush sources say senior White House aides are increasingly unhappy with Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, whose rambling style comes across as anything but reassuring. 'Tommy sounds like he's getting his PR tips from Maria Ein,' said a longtime Senate Republican aide, referring to the much-maligned public relations executive hired by scandal-ridden Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.)."

Talk about a low blow!

A key Brit provides a candid view of the war in a sitdown with the New York Times:

"With combat in Afghanistan moving from exclusive reliance on airstrikes to complex commando operations, Britain's top military officer said today that ground troops may have to operate in Afghanistan for weeks at a time if they are to ferret out Osama bin Laden and destroy his terrorist network.

"The raids envisaged by the British commander, Adm. Sir Michael Boyce, could be far longer and more risky than the raid carried out last Friday by United States Special Operations forces, who were on Afghan territory for only a few hours and encountered light resistance. Admiral Boyce, a 58-year-old former submariner, is heavily involved in planning the campaign against the Taliban and Mr. bin Laden. He revealed in today's interview, his first with an American newspaper since the war began on Oct. 7, that he made an unpublicized visit last week to the Pentagon and to Tampa, Fla., to meet Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head of the United States Central Command, who is running America's campaign in Afghanistan. . . .

"While the United States military has been the overwhelming force during the first phase of the conflict, the British role is more vital now that the campaign is beginning to involve ground troops. . . . 'It is conceivable that we could conduct an operation for a period of days and, perhaps, conceivably even weeks,' Adm. Boyce said."

Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times questions how far America can go in protecting itself: "In the era of anthrax and suicide hijackers, how much safety can society afford?

"With the nation facing unprecedented terrorist threats, the initial instinct in Washington has been to rush resources and fresh initiatives at every newly identified target, almost regardless of cost. But as government scrambles to stiffen airport security, tighten surveillance of immigrants, sterilize the torrent of mail the U.S. Postal Service processes every day and fortify dozens of other potential vulnerabilities, some experts are warning that the nation may quickly need to begin a tougher assessment of risk--and determine which defensive measures provide the most benefit for each limited dollar. . . .

"Though focused mostly on the immediate crisis, Thomas J. Ridge, director of the homeland security office, and other administration officials are quietly starting that kind of analysis, said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. . . .

"The need to prioritize protection presents the federal government with the perplexing challenge of accurately balancing risk and cost when it comes to a threat as inherently unpredictable as terrorism. Some of the emergency responses the federal government is now considering were earlier rejected--largely because critics said their benefits would not justify the cost to government or private business. In the last six weeks, though, the terrorists have imposed costs far greater than almost anyone thought possible – rendering the earlier calculations almost instantly irrelevant."

Last week the press was kicking Tommy Thompson around. Now, if this Washington Post piece is any indication, it's another Tom's turn:

"Tom Ridge, sworn in two weeks ago as head of President Bush's new homeland defense office, has emerged as the White House's chief messenger and troubleshooter on anthrax but is leaving the nuts and bolts of the federal response to others.

"Administration officials say that is exactly how Bush envisioned the job: Ridge, who is a longtime friend of the president, sits near the Oval Office and can pick up the phone and cut through egos and red tape.

"But the government's handling of the anthrax case – moving swiftly to protect Capitol Hill workers but far more slowly in identifying threats to postal workers – has raised questions about how well the investigation is being coordinated. And numerous lawmakers of both parties contend that to be effective in the long run, Ridge needs more direct authority, a bigger staff and a fatter budget. Congress plans legislation along those lines but the White House is fighting it behind the scenes.

"The FBI, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other departments and agencies each jealously guard their purview, yet Ridge – a newcomer to the administration – suddenly was serving as Grand Central for all of them as the microbes-in-the-mail crisis engulfed the administration. Ridge orchestrated a flurry of public appearances and briefings last week to try to quell criticism that the administration lacked a unified plan for dealing with the growing number of anthrax cases.

"When asked by a reporter on Monday whether he took personal responsibility for what seemed to be a lapse in the federal response to anthrax contamination of the District's Brentwood Road mail processing facility, Ridge replied: 'I think I will let the CDC speak to this, but they obviously proceeded aggressively on the Hill in response to that threat.'"

Being governor of Pennsylvania was probably more fun.

The New York Post reports a truly sickening development in the propaganda war: "Taliban leaders are plotting to poison humanitarian supplies for desperate Afghan civilians and blame the United States, the Pentagon disclosed yesterday. . . .

"As the pressure continued to mount on the Taliban, the Pentagon said it was disclosing information from intelligence-gathering sources about the possibility that the Taliban plans to poison food supplies dropped from U.S. military transport jets and trucked in by humanitarian organizations."

The House, back from its anthrax scare, is swinging into action. "The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday to greatly expand the power of law enforcement officials to combat terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks," the Boston Globe reports.

"The measure, which passed 357-66, would grant authorities wider latitude in detaining and conducting surveillance on suspected criminals, push the FBI and CIA to share more information, stiffen penalties for harboring terrorists, and beef up provisions targeting money-laundering.

"Federal investigators would more easily be able to track e-mail and Internet use without the need of a warrant, search property without first notifying the owner, and eavesdrop on suspects who use cellphones or move from location to location. The Senate is expected to pass the bill by the end of the week and send it to President Bush, who has said he will sign it."

The margin was a bit tighter on the stimulus-to-the-rescue measure, says USA Today:

"The House narrowly approved a bill yesterday that's designed to provide a quick $100 billion boost to the flagging U.S. economy. Adoption came on a largely party-line vote that stood out as an exception to the bipartisan unity that has dominated Congress since last month's terrorist attacks.

"The lawmakers voted 216-214 for the economic stimulus package, drafted by majority Republicans with no input from Democrats. The centerpiece of the bill is a set of tax breaks for businesses, worth $70 billion, that Republicans said would fuel economic growth and stop layoffs. Democrats labeled the bill an unwarranted corporate giveaway at the expense of fired workers that could bring about a return to big federal budget deficits. The bill goes to the Senate, where major changes are expected before it becomes final."

Los Angeles Times columnist John Balzar weighs in on Pentagon-press relations:

"Pop quiz. Which of the following is true?

"(A) The Vietnam War was lost because of the press.

"(B) The Vietnam War was lost because the generals couldn't bear the truth and politicians couldn't tell the truth, and after 10 agonizing years the nation lost faith in its leaders.

"The correct answer, of course, is B. Although you'd hardly know it by the baloney they're serving for lunch in the Pentagon situation room.

"Folks, take a breath. The press is not very graceful at explaining itself. So I'm with you if you think that reporters and editors sound whiny when they complain about the lockout imposed on coverage of this war. But I'm not with you, not even close, if you think it's good for America, good for the military, good for the world or good for you when we muzzle our media and accept the secretary of Defense's sugarcoated war of secrecy.

"A few truths: When they're riding along with the troops, American journalists are not going to give away any operational matters that will put our forces at risk. For the government to suggest otherwise is, simply, untrue. And for the public to believe it proves only how easily people are swayed by wartime propaganda.

"I was on the front lines in the Gulf War, and I knew in advance when the ground assault was to begin. Lots of reporters did. Did we alert Iraq? Of course not."

The New York Observer: "The biggest critic of the New York Post's Oct.20 'ANTHRAX THIS' cover – in which staffer Johanna Huden flicked her bandaged, anthrax-stricken middle finger – seems to be Ms. Huden herself, according to her Post colleagues.

"Ms. Huden, who was thrust into a media maelstrom after the Post revealed on Oct. 19 that she had tested positive for cutaneous anthrax, has told newsroom colleagues that she felt exploited by the paper. Before the announcement, Post sources said, Ms. Huden had not been coming into work, and she showed up on Oct. 19 only because the paper wanted to be able to say she was back at her desk.

"'She definitely thought the cover was in bad taste,' said a Post source. 'She was pretty annoyed.' Inside the paper, the Post ran a first-person tirade by Ms. Huden blaming Osama bin Laden for her medical ordeal, but Ms. Huden told other Post staffers that her original story was not nearly as vicious as the version that ran under her byline."

U.S. May Never Catch Bin Laden, Rumsfeld Says

Subscribe to The Post

Reuters
Thursday, October 25, 2001; 8:06 AM

WASHINGTON, Oct 25—U.S. forces may never catch Osama bin Laden, Washington's chief suspect in the Sept 11 attacks, but his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan likely will be toppled, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview published on Thursday.

After 18 days of U.S. and British airstrikes on Afghanistan, Rumsfeld told USA Today that it would be very difficult to capture or kill bin Laden, disowned heir to a Saudi construction fortune.

"It's a big world. There are lots of countries. He's got lots of money, he's got lots of people who support him. and I just don't know whether we'll be successful," he said.

Washington accuses bin Laden of having masterminded the Sept. 11 hijacked airliner attacks that killed more than 5,000 people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and on a flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

"Yes, I think there will be a post-Taliban Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said. "That is easier than finding a single person."

A Time magazine poll released on Oct. 13 showed that 81 percent of Americans considered the capture or death of bin Laden a necessary goal of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.

Even if bin Laden were killed, his guerrilla network would carry on, Rumsfeld said. "If he were gone tomorrow, the same problem would exist."

Rumsfeld said the Taliban militia was proving to be a formidable foe.

"These are very tough people," he said. "They've made careers out of fighting, and they're not going to roll over."

Rear Adm. John Stufflebeam, a deputy director of operations on the U.S. military's joint staff, told reporters on Wednesday he was "a bit surprised" at the Taliban's tenaciousness. But he said airstrikes would go on as long as it took to get rid of them.

"They are proving to be tough warriors," he said. "But we are prepared to take however long is required to bring the Taliban down."

Rumsfeld said toppling the Taliban would not necessarily mean a united Afghanistan with a stable government, USA Today reported. A U.S.-backed faction could control the capital, Kabul, and another—perhaps even the Taliban—could control the southern city of Kandahar, he was reported as saying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blair: strikes will lead to Bin Laden's death (Guardian)

Julian Glover
Thursday October 25, 2001

The military campaign in Afghanistan is more likely to lead to Osama bin Laden's death than his appearance in an international court, Tony Blair said in an interview published today.
"He is well protected and well armed and I have always thought it somewhat unlikely he will turn up in a court one day, but we will wait and see," the prime minister told the Daily Telegraph.

He argued that the military campaign was proceeding well, with the destruction of all of Bin Laden's training camps.

But Mr Blair failed to give any indication as to when ground forces may be deployed.

He said: "This is a different type of conflict from any traditional form of conflict," he said. "We will be operating on a number of different levels. There may be a role for ground forces but it will not be in a purely conventional sense."

"There is a role for air power, air strikes and there is also a role for encouraging those elements anti the Taliban regime, the Northern Alliance," he added.

He also defended the right of Labour critics of the war to speak out, but accused them of failing to propose alternative actions to the bombing campaign.

"We are a democracy, they can say whatever they like, I just happen to disagree with them," Mr Blair said.

And he did not rule out holding a Commons vote on military action, saying only "we may do

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)