Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/17/2001 9:24:23 AM PDT by xzins

Finding the invisible enemy is the first step.

Eliminating it is the next.

As Americans rally around the flag and demand action, military experts and leaders have pointed to past campaigns as examples of what’s to come.

Since Tuesday’s attack, top leaders have started weighing a wide range of retaliatory options. It’s a counterattack that will be swift in coming, many believe.

Beyond immediate counter-strikes, the administration promises a far-reaching campaign that will make it open season on terrorists and all who support them.

President Bush promised Saturday that "those who make war against us have chosen their own destruction" and that the coming campaign would "be sweeping, sustained and effective."

While digging through the tools available in the retaliation toolbox — ranging from single air strikes to full invasion — the decision before Bush and his national security advisers is more than figuring out what kind of hammer to use but, more importantly, what kind of campaign he needs to build.

"Like World War II, we can focus our campaign on just the original perpetrator, which would be like just fighting Japan," said one senior Army commander in Europe. "Or we could take the broader perspective and consider trying to fight the whole terrorist situation — the greater threat — and not just retaliate for this one event."

That was the road picked by the United States during World War II when U.S. leaders decided to declare war not only against Japan, but Germany and Italy as well.

"Given the wide scope of terrorist acts, this would truly be a World War III," said the officer.

And like previous wars, some blows may be more symbolic than decisive.

"The Pearl Harbor analogy is a good one," said retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former commander of NATO and all U.S. forces in Europe.

"So we’ll probably do a Doolittle Raid right up front," said Clark, who penned the recently released book, "Waging Modern War," after retiring last year. And like the initial retaliatory attack against Tokyo during World War II led by Col. James Doolittle with 16 B-25 bombers, "our first strikes here probably won’t accomplish much," Clark said. "It will make us feel better, but there will have to be much, much more."

Building a campaign

"If we find clear evidence that there was a nation state that supported this, or co-conspired, then it’s an act of war and we will go to war with them," said Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who retired last year as the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

At the very least, Zinni said, a wide network of agents — probably led by Osama bin Laden and operating from a variety of countries — is to blame for Tuesday’s attack.

"Other than a nation state it’s hard to imagine that it could have been anyone else," Zinni said. "No else has the resources to pull off something this big."

That network could stretch over more than a dozen countries, with Afghanistan and Iraq on the top of the list, say those familiar with bin Laden’s group.

"It’s a very broadly based organization," said Clark.

"He has cells in a number of countries, probably more than a dozen and they’re on every continent."

The scope of such a broad campaign has military planners reeling with the magnitude of the job before them.

"You can cut the head off the dandelion, but if you don’t go in and rip the roots out, it’s going to grow back," said one senior Army staff officer in Europe.

"We have to get to the roots of this if we’re going to solve anything. The strategic implications down the line, though, especially if you’re talking about going after nation states, well, it’s just mind-boggling what it means to go after the roots of this thing."

It will be no easy task, says terrorism exert Tim Ripley with the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies at England’s Lancaster University.

"Finding the enemy will be the root of the problem," Ripley said. Unlike going to war with entire nations, the strength of a terrorist is his anonymity.

"The same intelligence failures that prevented us from stopping this attack are going to make it hard to pursue attacking these people."

Another difficult task for the United States is rethinking its foreign and military policies, he said.

"The fundamental result of this attack is that American interests in the Middle East have completely changed. It’s gone from protecting economic interests to actually protecting the homeland," Ripley said.

"The whole equation has changed."

What can be considered "acceptable risk," not only in gathering intelligence, but acting on it with the military, also has completely shifted, he said.

"This is no longer in a situation where leaders will be worried about the Scott O’Grady factor," he said, referring to past concerns that even a single casualty could fray public will with U.S. efforts in Bosnia after a U.S. fighter pilot was shot down.

"When you are willing to take risks and accept casualties, it quantifiably changes what you can accomplish," Ripley said.

Getting down to business

A looser leash on how the military goes about its job also means a greater need for thoughtful consideration before telling it what to do.

"This is where the politics become important with the military," Clark said.

"Say Iraq is involved. OK, they’ve welcomed and encouraged terrorists and we go in and get them. But what about a state that says they are not involved, but they are. Do we tell the military to shoot first and ask questions later?"

Unlike air campaigns of recent years, the question is not as much about what to destroy, as it is about whom to destroy.

"We’re talking about people here. You have to take out an organization — drag it out into the sunlight and kill it," Clark said.

The military knows how to take out places and things, but has had little recent experience in going after individuals. Indeed, U.S. law forbids targeting individuals for assassinations and even in NATO-protectorates like Bosnia, military officials have been reluctant to even try and arrest indicted war criminals.

For years, however, the United States has honed its ability to carry out precision attacks — both in exercises and regular real world showdowns — with everything from cruise missiles to laser-guided bombs.

But all that has been with limited success.

A low-grade air war against Iraq for more than decade now has done little to force Saddam Hussein into complying with United Nations resolutions. In response to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, the United States used cruise missiles to attack camps in Afghanistan and a factory in Africa believed to be tied to bin Laden, neither of which accomplished much, critics said.

On the other hand, air campaigns both in 1995 and 1999 led to peace agreements ending fighting in the Balkans, eventually toppling the government of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia.

"Though a surgical strike offers a quick and nearly risk-free demonstration to the American people, it does little to effect a real solution," according to an analysis released by the intelligence think tank Stratfor, based in Austin, Texas.

"A more involved option — particularly if the attackers are linked to a specific host nation — is a sustained air operation, likely followed by ground operations.

"This will not be a quick war, nor one with a definite end point. Washington must be willing to accept greater influence in policy from intelligence agencies — whose lapses may have allowed the latest attacks — and from special operations forces, whose clandestine operations may not fit with current accepted norms."

Special Ops

"This cannot be just another air campaign," said former 1st Infantry Division commander David L. Grange. "It should involve air and sea, and we better be sure we have the will to involve ground forces as well."

Grange, who spent most of his career in special forces including command of elite Delta Force units during 1991 war against Iraq, said any covert mission into Afghanistan to snatch bin Laden would likely be large-scale and complex.

"It would be very tough, but doable. It would be on the order magnitude of Desert One," said Grange, referring to the ill-fated attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iraq in 1979.

One of the biggest concerns would be setting up staging areas to operate out of, Grange said.

"We’d want to be in close," he said. "The most important thing is intelligence on the target. Where is he, and what is he doing?"

The vast distances in the Middle East stretch even the longest-range helicopters, he said.

"Whether going into Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, any of those areas, key things to consider are the distances involved which Arab countries are going to provide support."

Equally important are which countries will withhold support, and present additional complications.

"You have to consider second- and third-order effects," Grange said. "Would a particular country retaliate against Israel for something we did? How could our actions affect petroleum prices?"

Regional wars

Such scenarios could lead to widespread regional conflicts, whether the United States wants it or not.

If a raid on Iraq or Syria, for example, prompted retaliatory strikes against Israel, that could be enough to ignite a new Arab-Israeli war.

Should the United States decide to militarily prosecute those countries that support terrorism, such regional wars may be inescapable. Indeed, many current and former leaders expect this could well the beginning of a long series of such wars.

"Like World War II, this war will be made up of multiple campaigns, battles and conflicts," said one senior army officer with extensive experience in contingency planning.

"Of course, some will be won, others will be lost."

If that is the road picked by national leaders, perseverance and a strong league of countries committed to the cause will be the key.

"It must be a true alliance," said the officer, "and not a temporary coalition that could dissolve after the first set back."

Such an alliance may also make for strange bedfellows.

If a large-scale attack on Afghanistan is envisioned, it could involved perhaps both U.S. and Russian troops fighting side by side.

"That would be ironic, wouldn’t it," quipped one officer. "First we help drive them out of Afghanistan and then we help invade again," he said, referring to the covert support given to Afghan rebels by the CIA after the Soviet invasion of the country in 1979.

An all-out military strike against multiple groups of terrorists in multiple countries will take an "unknown" type of coordination, said Francois Heisbourg, incoming chairman of London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"This is not just going to be about bombing; it’s just not going to be about a ground-war; it’s just not going to be about isolated, precise missions with highly-trained troops," said Heisbourg, a military expert from France.

"It’s going to be about everything that is intended to dismantle and eradicate the organization that brought terror to you."

Stars and Stripes reporter David Josar contributed to this story.

RELATED STORIES: Options facing Army, Navy and Air Force

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.