Global Beat Syndicate: Making Asia a Priority, Not a Threat

An open-ended war against terror invite fears of another Vietnam

By Michael Klare

Oct. 10, 2001

AMHERST, Mass -- So far, the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban has followed the carefully scripted plan devised by the White House and the Pentagon over the past few weeks: first, air and missile strikes against the few visible expressions of Taliban military power, to be followed by commando-type raids on suspected terrorist hideouts.

Unknown, however, are the steps that will follow. There are signs that President Bush and his senior aides favor a much longer and more elaborate conflict -- one that shows every risk of turning into a Vietnam-like quagmire.

Bush himself raised the likelihood of a long drawn-out conflict when he announced the first U.S. strikes on Sunday. “Today we focus on Afghanistan,” he told the nation, “but the battle is broader.”

What, exactly, might such a conflict entail? From what is publicly known of U.S. troop movements, it appears the Pentagon is preparing for an extended campaign in Afghanistan aimed at overthrowing the Taliban regime and attacking every cave and hiding place that might be used by bin Laden and his associates. This, in turn, is likely to involve close collaboration with the anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance, plus the deployment, for some time, of U.S. ground troops in areas once occupied by bin Laden’s forces.

But if Bush’s statements are to be taken at face value, this is only stage one of the war against terrorism. The next steps, in all likelihood, will include raids on terrorist camps in other countries. Likely candidates for attack include Islamic extremist groups in Lebanon, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and the Philippines.

President Bush also has spoken of the need to punish governments that harbor or support terrorists, aside from the Taliban. There is no mystery about the favored target for such an attack: the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Ever since the events of September 11, members of the President’s inner circle have spoken openly and frankly of their desire to go after Hussein and complete the job that they felt was left unfinished after the Gulf War of 1991.

A new round of attacks on the Iraqi regime probably would entail air and missile strikes on Saddam’s numerous palaces, along with key government buildings in Baghdad. Presumably, the strikes would continue until Saddam was killed or overthrown.

It is possible, of course, that Hussein would perish in the opening days of the campaign, leading to a quick and decisive victory. But it is just as likely that Hussein would survive such attacks, and launch other forms of attack on American forces and installations. This, in turn, could prompt the administration to order an U.S. ground campaign against Iraq.

Either of these scenarios -- raids on terrorist camps outside Afghanistan or a full-scale attack on Iraq -- will no doubt produce numerous civilian casualties and provoke a new wave of anti-American protests in the Islamic world, possibly accompanied by further outbreaks of terrorism.

At this point, it is impossible to predict which of these outcomes is likely to materialize. But one thing is clear: President Bush has placed no limits on the scope or duration of U.S. military operations. For now, he is acting with the support of the American people. But President Bush stands to lose that support if he embarks on an open-ended campaign against unnamed enemies. With all the lives at stake, the president owes it to the American people to spell out his intentions and invite public debate on the best U.S. strategy.

Michael T. Klare, an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, in Amherst, Mass. He is the author of Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws (Hill and Wang, 1995).