Terrorists are under attack even before a shot is fired

Terrorists are under attack even before a shot is fired
By John Keegan, Defence Editor
(Filed: 28/09/2001)

THERE is a danger that America's worldwide war on terrorism risks declining into a phoney war, as the Second World War did in its early months, and for the same reason, lack of action.

Many in the West have already expressed a lack of support for the Americans' campaign. Even some fervent supporters may begin to lose heart if the president and his team are not seen to achieve concrete results soon.

It is worth reviewing what positive effects of the mobilisation of the anti-terrorist coalition can be claimed so far.

The identities of many in the terror network are now probably known to the security services and they are under pursuit. A large number of accomplices, both in America and Europe, have been arrested.

The probability is, therefore, that the primary network has been very severely damaged.

That would be a severe blow to the umbrella organisation controlling it, since the New York and Washington outrages took months of preparation and the trained personnel involved cannot easily be replaced.

Moreover, precautions against a repetition now in place make the launching of a similar operation improbable. The terrorist networks are now undoubtedly examining other possibilities.

Because the security services are now operating at full pressure, the terrorists are under another disadvantage.

Much of the energy they would want to devote to offensive operations now has to be invested in defensive measures.

Individuals are trying to create new identities, find new hiding places and establish new channels of communication, which they will fear have been penetrated. Secure communication is as essential to terrorists as it is to a national security organisation and has to be achieved with much less ample and sophisticated means.

Though it may not seem so to the public, which is now in a state of alarm and is tending to exaggerate terrorist capability, the terrorist organisations are currently in disarray. One of the main aims of the security services at present is to sustain that disarray and profit from it.

It is important to remember that in a contest between a developed state and a terrorist organisation, there is an enormous disparity of force in the state's favour.

Terrorists are weak. They succeed only by exploiting chinks in a state's armour. Such chinks are few.

States are far richer than any terrorist organisation, have far greater numbers of trained personnel at their disposal and, if they successfully mobilise their populations, an enormous resource in the vigilance and powers of observation of ordinary people.

Democratic populations are slow to slough off the easy assumptions of everyday security from danger but, when they do, provide the best shield of all against terrorist activity.

The Taliban, it must be remembered as well, is also a weak organisation. Its numbers are small - a few tens of thousands at most - its fighters are poorly trained and ill-equipped, and it has no capacity to operate outside its own territory.

It does not even control the whole of Afghanistan, where it has made itself widely disliked by the majority, who are conventional Muslims with a strong aversion to the fundamentalism to which the Taliban subjects them.

Although the Taliban is supported by the Pakistani army and intelligence service, that support is likely to wither if it succeeds in driving large numbers of refugees over the border to join the several million already present who are trying ordinary Pakistanis' sense of tribal brotherhood to the limits.

America's refusal to make clear its operational intentions, though it contributes to the public's sense of involvement in a phoney war, has an unrecognised advantage.

It creates a sense of insecurity in states which are involved in the terrorist web. It is said that there are 60 states in which bin Laden's organisation has cells.

While America gathers its forces and plans its attack, none can be sure that it is not in focus.

That will encourage states to declare themselves on the right side, as the Ivory Coast did recently by denying that any Islamic training camp was located on its territory, and by making good its disclaimers by taking appropriate action to expel or arrest suspects.

It may indeed be the intention of the United States government in this early stage of its war against terrorism to create a climate of insecurity equivalent to that associated with terrorism, but strengthened by having international law on its side.

The purpose would be to separate the sheep from the goats. The number of black sheep is, in reality, quite small. The rogue Islamic states - Iraq, Libya - are well known. Those with serious Islamic conspiracies - Yemen, Egypt, Sudan - are not more numerous. Those with dissident Islamic minorities are known also.

America's current intention, while it stays its hand, may be to put the rogue states on warning, while strengthening the hand of moderate Muslim governments against their internal dissidents and intransigent minorities.

Washington is displaying a remarkable coolness. Its current passivity should not be mistaken for weakness but as the masterly inactivity of a great power, provoked but not shaken, while it prepares a terrible reckoning.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/core/News/BreakingNewsBody.jhtml?story=3&pubDate=2001-09-29+00:55&xml=/news/editorial/home_news.xml&site=5

Reconnaissance forces in Afghanistan

British special forces and their US counterparts are already working inside Afghanistan on secret scouting missions.

The troops have been deployed in the country for reconnaissance missions to pave the way for possible full-scale military action against the country.

The deployments have been confirmed by a senior official in Washington, who said they were not there to seek Osama bin Laden, the man believed to have masterminded the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

And they came as President George W Bush said: "Make no mistake about it we're in hot pursuit."

There had been claims in Pakistan and the US that the forces had been sent in to hunt down Bin Laden.

But the Bush administration official denied the reports, while CNN reported that the special forces have been in the region for several days.

There have been unconfirmed reports that two or possibly three US transport planes arrived at airfields in Uzbekistan, which has offered bases and air space to coalition forces.

And an anonymous US official told CNN the British presence was crucial to the operations and was reported to have said: "The British are better at these things than us."

Both Mr Bush and his official spokesman have refused to comment publicly on the deployments. But the president has said he and his officials are aware of how badly Soviet Union forces were routed by guerrillas when they intervened in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

"It is very hard to fight a guerrilla war with conventional forces and we understand that," he said. "It will require the best of intelligence and sharing of intelligence."

Only those who don't read the news or are total idiots couldn't see the astounding results Bush has made in the 10 days since the attack.

Since the day Bush said he will "make no distinction" between the perpetrators of the atrocities and those who harbour them;

He has rallied support from nations around the world to condemn the attacks.

The United Nations has been withdrawing its 80 expatriate staff from Afghanistan.

The FBI has identified a team of 50 people who helped plan or carry out the air attacks.

NATO and Russia issue a rare joint statement calling for international efforts to combat global terrorism.

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat calls on Arab states to declare readiness to join a coalition against terrorism.

The U.S. Senate approves Bush's $40 billion package for counter-terrorism efforts and for rescue and recovery.

The U.S. House of Representatives approves and the Senate passes a resolution authorising Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against the perpetrators of the hijacks.

The United States orders more than 100 military aircraft to the Gulf region.

Afghan clerics recommend bin Laden leave the country, but Washington demands he be turned over to responsible authorities.

Bush creates a new Cabinet post to oversee "homeland defence."

President Bush announces a freeze on assets of bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.

G7 finance ministers agree to end funding of suspected terrorism groups and to cooperate in freezing their assets.

The United Arab Emirates Central Bank orders the freezing of assets of 26 "terrorist" groups and individuals.

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russia will step up arms supplies to Afghan opponents of the Taliban, share intelligence on "terrorist" activities and open an air route for humanitarian aid in the event of U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

The Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan offer the United States help in possible military operations in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic relations with the Taliban, leaving Pakistan as the only state to recognise it.

President Bush announces federal funding of $500 million towards improving aviation security after the September 11 attacks.

Hundreds of arrests have been made world-wide, numerous follow-up terrorist strikes have been thwarted, and British and American special forces are reported to be operating in Afghanistan, while the military buildup in the region continues, and Bush gains world support and further isolates bin Laden and the Taliban.

Bush is doing an incredible job.

Action against bin Laden not yet finalised
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 29/09/2001)

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/29/wdip29.xml

THE American plan to attack Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network has not been finalised and military action is likely to be held off because of logistical complications and attempts to woo more allies, according to senior sources in Washington.


	Ready for action: an FA-18 Hornet blasts off from the USS Kennedy

"We're not there yet," said one highly-placed source, who revealed that the plan was still being drawn up by the United States Army's Central Command (CENTCOM) and had yet to be approved by the Pentagon and President Bush before being put to allies.

Suggesting there could be a delay before air strikes or special forces operations, the source said that better intelligence on bin Laden was needed and issues of which countries' bases and airspace to use had not yet been resolved.

"And then it's not just military, it's political. The plan needs to work diplomatically." But he emphasised that military action could begin even before the overall plan was finalised. Surprise would be a crucial element.

Although the comments could have been designed to deceive bin Laden and al-Qa'eda, a wide range of both military and diplomatic sources in Washington suggest that contrary to reports earlier this week a strike may not be imminent.

The source said that the Bush administration remains unclear about whether it wants to topple the Taliban regime and, if so, how to install a stable democratic entity in Afghanistan.

Mr Bush's advisers had moderated initial backing for the Northern Alliance because of objections from Pakistan and a realisation that the group had too narrow an ethnic make-up to command broad support. The White House was also examining whether divisions within the Taliban could be exploited.

The source said: "To some extent, there are good Taliban and bad Taliban." Mr Bush ruled out negotiations with the Taliban leaders last night and said the United States was in "hot pursuit" of bin Laden.

America had learnt from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s how hard it would be "to fight a guerrilla war with conventional forces", he said. "Make no mistake about it, we're in hot pursuit."

He added: "It's not just bin Laden that we expect to see brought to justice. It's everybody associated with his organisation . . . and not only those directly associated with bin Laden, but any terrorist that's housed and fed in Afghanistan needs to be handed over.

"And finally, we expect there to be complete destruction of terrorist camps. That's what I told them. That's what I mean."

An American official said that Britain's role was crucial militarily as well as diplomatically and when asked about special forces operations, acknowledged that "the British are better at this than us".

British and American officials have said they possess incontrovertible evidence that September 11 was an operation carried out by al-Qa'eda but have been unable to publicise this for fear of compromising intelligence sources.

The hawks within the Bush administration who favoured attacking Iraq are understood to have prevented Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, from releasing information about al-Qa'eda involvement because this would also have shown that Iraq had not played any part. (Interesting)

The argument about Saddam Hussein has been "parked" for the time being. Gen Powell is strongly opposed to the suggestion by Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon deputy, that America should move against Iraq and his counsel has prevailed for the time being at least.

Condoleezza Rice, the foreign policy adviser who has the closest personal relationship with Mr Bush, is understood to have supported Gen Powell on the Iraq issue.

Britain has also been a key proponent of the Powellite point of view, with one official describing the Pentagon deputy as "the wild-eyed Wolfowitz".

Britain's position as America's principal ally has been cemented during the recent crisis, with the Government warmly praising the Bush administration's deliberative approach and decision not to rush into military action in the immediate aftermath of September 11.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.