Chapter 5: Counter-Attack or Godsend?
On the evening of 11 September, President George W. Bush addresses the nation, a solemn televised message in mystical accents:
America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America -- with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.
Thank you. Good night, and God bless America.
[[Cut & pasted from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html]]
Despite this message of unity, and at a point in time when Osama bin Laden's responsibility is only considered a hypothesis, two contradictory political options are being recommended within the bosom of his administration. The moderates, who have gathered themselves around Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, recommend a proportioned response, along the lines of the one ordered by Bill Clinton in 1998. Tomahawk missiles were fired that year, from submarines on patrol in the Sea of Oman, at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the Al-Shifa laboratory in Sudan, as a response to the attacks carried out against the US embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi. On the other hand, the "hawks" point out that those strikes had no effect, seeing as how Al-Qaeda have resumed their attacks. As far as they're concerned, only a military ground campaign in Afghanistan will be able to definitively eradicate Osama bin Laden's bases. But the campaign had better not stop there; it ought to go on and destroy in a similar fashion all other potential dangers, that is, all organizations and states liable to become menaces like Al-Qaeda.
Old Henry Kissinger [The Crimes of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens], former Secretary of State, who oversaw all clandestine actions of the American secret services from 1969 to 1976, is the tutelary figure, the inspiration of the "hawks." The President's TV speech is barely finished when he posts an op-ed column on the Washington Post website. [President Bush's remarks started at 8:30 pm and Dr Kissinger's column appeared online at 9:04 pm. Destroy the Network by Henry Kissinger, Washington Post, 11 September, http://www.washingtonpost.com] He certainly dots his I's:
But then the government should be charged with a systematic response that, one hopes, will end the way that the attack on Pearl Harbor ended – with the destruction of the system that is responsible for it. That system is a network of terrorist organizations sheltered in capitals of certain countries. In many cases we do not penalize those countries for sheltering the organizations; in other cases, we maintain something close to normal relations with them.
We do not yet know whether Osama bin Laden did this, although it appears to have the earmarks of a bin Laden-type operation. But any government that shelters groups capable of this kind of attack, whether or not they can be shown to have been involved in this attack, must pay an exorbitant price.
It is something we should do calmly, carefully and inexorably.
[[Cut & pasted from http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/61P12.htm, a mirror of the Post article]]
While American public opinion is still reeling from shock and mourning its dead, the 12th and 13th of September are dominated, in the US administration and parliaments all over the world, by three questions: Is George W. Bush going to designate Al-Qaeda as the guilty party in these attacks? What kind of operation is he going to order in Afghanistan? And will he get his nation involved in a long, drawn-out war against all its enemies, real and supposed?
American officials increase the number of leaks to the press to designate Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization as the commandant and performer of the attacks. CIA director George Tenet presents President Bush with a series of briefings on Al-Qaeda communications, intercepted on 11 September [Wednesday, September 12 by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, Washington Post, 28 January 2002]. The attacks had been in preparation for the last two years, they would only be the beginning of a long series of attacks, the Capitol and the White House were numbered among the targets. Al-Qaeda leaders erroneously believed to have carried out several goals: they "thanked God for the explosions in the Capitol building," they praised the "destruction of the White House," and celebrated "the doctor's plan" (that is, Dr Ayman Zawahri, Osama's right-hand man). The operation had been initiated by Abu Zubayda, who was already suspected of having organized the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in October 2000. He had given the signal for "Zero Hour."
So President Bush addresses the press [Remarks by the President In Photo Opportunity with the National Security Team, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010912-4.html]:
THE PRESIDENT: I have just completed a meeting with my national security team, and we have received the latest intelligence updates.
The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war. This will require our country to unite in steadfast determination and resolve. Freedom and democracy are under attack.
The American people need to know that we're facing a different enemy than we have ever faced. This enemy hides in shadows, and has no regard for human life. This is an enemy who preys on innocent and unsuspecting people, then runs for cover. But it won't be able to run for cover forever. This is an enemy that tries to hide. But it won't be able to hide forever. This is an enemy that thinks its harbors are safe. But they won't be safe forever.
This enemy attacked not just our people, but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be patient, we will be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination.
This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win.
The federal government and all our agencies are conducting business. But it is not business as usual. We are operating on a heightened security alert. America is going forward, and as we do so, we must remain keenly aware of the threats to our country. Those in authority should take appropriate precautions to protect our citizens.
But we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms. This morning, I am sending to Congress a request for emergency funding authority, so that we are prepared to spend whatever it takes to rescue victims, to help the citizens of New York City and Washington, D.C. respond to this tragedy, and to protect our national security.
I want to thank the members of Congress for their unity and support. America is united. The freedom-loving nations of the world stand by our side. This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail.
Aside from the British Foreign Office, who add to the martial declarations, parliaments around the world observe President Bush's reaction with disquiet. They quickly understood that the German, Egyptian, French, Israeli, and Russian intelligence services had all alerted their American counterparts about what was going to happen, but in vain, as the CIA minimized the risk. They also wonder about the reliability of the CIA's briefings (suddenly so long-winded) and the progress the FBI were making in their investigation (too fast). They fear that President Bush, in order to reassure his countrymen, will hastily name a guilty party based on circumstantial evidence, and will engage his country in an immediate and disproportionate military counter-attack.
On the same day, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1368 [on the Web at http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/2001/4899.htm] which recognizes "the [United States'] inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter [of San Francisco]." It stipulates that "The Council Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable." In other words, the Security Council recognizes America's right to violate, if necessary, the sovereignty of States who protect the people who carried out the attacks, in order to apprehend these terrorists and to bring them before international justice. Nevertheless, it does not authorize the USA to mete out said justice itself, or to attack other States, or to overthrow their governments.
In the evening, the NATO Security Council meets behind closed doors. Member states decide to proffer assistance to the United States—not to involve their own forces—in order to face the attack of which they were the object. The Council was unusually tense. Certain members think that the attacks could have been commissioned from within the American apparatus of state, and they refuse to get involved in a "war on terrorism" with poorly-defined objectives and limits. Leaving the meeting, NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson declares: "If it is established that this attack was directed from a foreign country against the United States [sic], it will be considered an action relevant to Article Five of the Washington Treaty" [NATO Reaffirms Treaty Commitments In Dealing With Terrorist Attacks Against The US, NATO press service, 12 September 2001. http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/0910/e0912a.htm]. Uneasy with the way events are unfolding, the French President Jacques Chirac gives George W. Bush a phone call. Reminding him that France has always shown itself to be the United States' most faithful ally, or, failing that, the most docile ally, Chirac politely explains to him that the NATO Council's decision is not a blank check, not a blind adherence to American politics.
A few days later, Jacques Chirac heads for the United States, on the occasion of a visit planned long in advance. On the one hand, he adds to the warm declarations of solidarity with the American people. On the other hand, he organizes a joint press conference with the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, in order to cool the USA's jets. Without beating around the bush, he declares: "...it is the identified terrorists that must be sanctioned and eventually those countries and groups where we have evidence that they have provided assistance to those identified terrorists." [[cut & pasted, with corrections, from http://www0.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7964.doc.htm; original French says "...la sanction doit porter sur les terroristes identifiés et éventuellement sur les pays ou les groupes dont on a la preuve qu'ils ont apporté une aide à ces groupes terroristes identifiés." See http://www.un.org/News/fr-press/docs/2001/SGSM7964.doc.htm.]]
The parliaments' fears seem to be confirmed by an incident which occurs during a joint press conference [Media Briefing at FBI HQ, 12 September 2001, at 9:30 am] with Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller III. The chief of police is explaining to the journalists that it's necessary that the investigation not be hastened, so that the necessary proof of guilt to convict the suspects can be collected, when the justice minister interrupts him brutally. John Ashcroft emphasizes that time is of the essence and that the FBI's mission is to arrest the terrorists' accomplices as quickly as possible, before they have the chance to commit any more crimes. So much for proof.
The pitch rises on the 13th of September. In the morning, the White House is partially evacuated after an anti-terrorist alert—this is becoming a habit—and Vice-President Cheney is taken off to a distant safe place. A false alert, and some real psychodrama. In the afternoon, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, delivers the Pentagon press briefing. Wolfowitz is the spokesman for the most extremist conservative group within the military-industrial lobby. He's been calling for years to "finish off the dirty work" in Iraq, and he sees an easy justification for the wished-for overthrow of Saddam in the events of 11 September. He does not mention any target during the course of the press briefing, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. But he does emphasize that the American response will be "a campaign, not an isolated action." And he insists: "We're going to keep after these people and the people who support them until this stops. And it has to be treated that way." [DOD News Briefing, 13 September 2001: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09132001_t0913dsd.html]
Thinking to beat the "hawks" to the punch, Secretary of State Colin Powell names Osama bin Laden as the "primary suspect" and prepares full-speed-ahead an intervention, which he would prefer be limited, in Afghanistan. He issues an ultimatum of sorts to Pakistan, in order to convince Pakistan to put its entire military infrastructure at America's disposal, and to immediately cut off all political and economic relations with the Taliban regime. [US Asks Pakistan for Help to Track Down Bin Laden,Robin Wright and John Daniszewski, Los Angeles Times, 14 September 2001]
In reality, as we shall see, this isn't a new debate in Washington. The two options (strikes against Afghanistan or a general war on terrorism) were studied and planned before the attacks. They don't really have any connection with the events of 11 September [[Leurs raisons d'être sont sans lien avec les événements du 11 septembre]], even if those events serve as an alibi for putting them into action. From then on, the quarrel starts up again, to see if public opinion will only put up with targeted strikes, or if the public is sufficiently shocked to accept a long, drawn-out war. After all is said and done, psychological shock will prove so important that the Washington strategists won't have to choose; they'll be able to activate both options.
In mid-July 2001, noticing that the Berlin negotiations on Afghanistan's future had suffered a setback, the American delegation led by Tom Simmons (former ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State), and Lee Coldren (former State Dept expert) started making threats. According to Pakistan's former Ambassador to France, Niaz Naik, who took place in the negotiations, the Americans declared that they were going to invade Afghanistan in mid-October and that they were going to overthrow the Taliban. [US Planned Attack on Taliban, BBC, 18 September 2001, and Secret Memo Reveals US Plan to Overthrow Taliban Regime, The Guardian, 21 September 2001]
Starting in September, under cover of its annual military exercises in the Sea of Oman, "Essential Harvest," the UK proceeded with the most important naval deployment since the Falkland Islands war and massed its forces off the Pakistani coast. Meanwhile, NATO forces, on the occasion of the Bright Star maneuvers in Egypt, moved 40,000 soldiers into the region. Thus, Anglo-American forces were pre-positioned in the area before the attacks.
As for the "War on Terrorism," the American Joint Chiefs of Staff had been preparing for it for a long time, holding two "war games": Global Engagement IV and JEFX 99 [A New Mindset for Warfare, William M. Arkin, Washington Post, 22 September 2001]. Tactical procedures were perfected during a later simulation in June 2000. But the "war game" originally planned for June 2001 had been canceled, which concerned officers had interpreted as a signal of an imminent act.
The Americans have always disliked starting wars. In the past, they have taken care to present their military actions as legitimate responses. With the 11 September attacks, they found the opportunity of a lifetime.
[[END OF CHAPTER FIVE]]