In War on Terrorism, Unseen Fronts May Be Crucial |
Posted by FoM on September 22, 2001 at 21:50:13 PT Thomas E. Ricks & Steven Mufson, WP Staff Writer Source: Washington Post As the buildup of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region gathers steam, the Bush administration is pursuing its war on terrorism along less traditional fronts as well, moving to freeze terrorists' assets, pressuring their state supporters through diplomacy and putting in motion covert operations against their networks. The visible military operations and the other, less observable, actions promise to be the two sides of this war. They will make it less like traditional wars the United States has fought and, in many respects, more like the war against drugs that the country has been pursuing for at least two decades, military experts said. Like the war on drugs, it will be long. It will rely less on conventional weaponry and more on special operations raids, covert attacks and entirely nonmilitary means. Indeed, the less observable realms of intelligence, finance, diplomacy and computer warfare may prove to be the major arenas of the effort, with military operations in a supporting role that will steal the headlines but tell only part of the story. "It's closer to the type of complexity in controlling international drugs than it is to Desert Storm," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who led the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division against Iraqi forces in the Persian Gulf War a decade ago and later headed the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton. "It requires an interagency effort by the Defense, Justice and State departments." The diffuse, complex nature of the administration's emerging strategy for combating terrorism also points to the likely tactics it will use – and on its ultimate targets, according to military experts. "Nobody believes that the way to fight the war on drugs is to concentrate on the hapless mule who carries cocaine through an airport," said Richard Perle, a policy strategist in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Likewise, he said, in the war against terrorism "you go after the source. You go after the producers, the big fish. And the equivalent of the producers, the drug lords, are not the terrorists but the countries that harbor them." President Bush has made clear that the administration's initial focus will likely be accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. But the most important target in this war – what military theorists call the enemy's "center of gravity" – could prove to be the governments that give sanctuary to terrorists, rather than the terrorists themselves, specialists in military planning said. There is every indication that the war will start – or has started – in Afghanistan, where bin Laden has based his operations since 1996. Although the Pentagon refuses to comment on covert operations, there were rumblings in the Defense Department last week that a counteroffensive was already under way. Indeed, the Taliban militia claimed yesterday to have shot down an unmanned U.S. reconnaissance drone over Afghanistan. The Pentagon had no comment on the report. The military action in Afghanistan, both covert and overt, is likely to rely heavily on intelligence and operations by U.S. Special Forces. "This is the most information-intensive war you can imagine," one Defense Department official said. "I think it is going to put us to the test in many ways." If the Persian Gulf War was more like football, with its lengthy buildup and diagrammed maneuvers, this war likely will resemble soccer, with its fluidity and improvisation. It will be a difficult sort of war to command, execute and analyze, military experts predict. "It is going to require a different mind-set," said one officer involved in planning for it. Officials say that although there eventually could be military action in places other than Afghanistan, the administration has yet to decide on those plans. To give the Pentagon more flexibility, however, the administration has deployed aircraft carriers, a Marine expeditionary unit and scores of warplanes to the region. In an unprecedented move, some aircraft are being sent to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. If the military component in the administration's war against terrorism is only half the battle, the other half will include financial, economic, law enforcement, domestic security, diplomatic and intelligence elements, officials said. And their desired effect will be psychological as well as tactical. "Now we have a clear enemy who is not only trying to do us great damage, but is also trying to terrorize us . . . to paralyze us by terrorizing us," said Robert B. Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative who was a senior aide to Secretary of State James A. Baker III during the Gulf War. "Our response has to counter fear and panic." Here is how some facets of the struggle are taking shape: On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has reached out to European allies, Arab nations, China and Russia in an effort to isolate Afghanistan and make it difficult for bin Laden to find refuge. The United Arab Emirates severed relations with the Taliban, and Iran and Pakistan sealed their borders. Powell has also reached out to sometime foes – such as Syria and Iran – urging them to abandon their past policies of supporting terrorist groups. While asserting that they had no illusions about the chances for such changes, Powell and Bush have indicated to the two countries that now would be a chance for a new start. On the economic front, the administration has sought to use trade and aid to offer incentives to wavering nations and assurance to friends. It moved last week to lift U.S. sanctions on Pakistan that had been imposed because of displeasure with Islamabad's nuclear weapons program. And it held out the possibility of throwing U.S. support behind the rescheduling of talks that were already moving forward on Pakistan's more than $30 billion in debt if it withdraws its support from the Taliban and helps the U.S. war effort. The administration also bolstered trade ties with Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, whose president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, made a previously scheduled visit to Washington to see Bush. Indonesia, a moderate Muslim country, has been used as a base by terrorist networks in the past. On the financial front, the United States is looking for help from Europe, where many of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on New York and Washington had lived, schooled or transited on their way to the United States. Several European allies, including Britain, Italy, Germany and Spain, have seized bank accounts suspected of being linked to bin Laden or other terrorist organizations. Bush is expected to take the next step Monday by signing an executive order designating some individuals and groups as terrorist and freezing their assets. The administration is also trying to get better intelligence information on the bin Laden network. China agreed to send an interagency group of counterterrorism experts to share information. The administration is also pressuring Pakistan, which is considered the country with the best intelligence on the Taliban and bin Laden, to cooperate. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf states – home to financial backers and recruits for terrorist networks – could also provide useful information to the United States. Some of those countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, have not been completely forthcoming in the past, some U.S. officials say. Saudi Arabia pledged its support in the investigation of this month's attacks and has already delivered dossiers on some individuals as requested by the FBI. It will be difficult to measure the success of these different approaches. And it is likely to be equally difficult to tell when the war is over. Asked to define "victory" in the war against terrorism last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had difficulty coming up with a concise answer. After 500 words of hovering, he landed on his definition. "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. McCaffrey, a veteran of the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the drug war, said the answer was probably more like New York City's successful war on crime. "At the end of the day, you have to ask a mom whether she feels safe going out with her children," he said. "If she answers no, then you haven't done the job. Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Articles & Web Site: Holy Warriors Escalate an Old War The End of Liberty - Salon.com What Bush Didn't Say - Salon.com Civil Liberties and the Hill FBI Tracking Terrorist Groups Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #12 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 23, 2001 at 06:05:43 PT:
|
It would be great to include Julia, by Lillian Hellman. This would be very appropos, as it deals with a very out-of-the-mainstream heroine who sacrifices everything to preserve her ideals. The students would also be inspired by seeing the movie. I admit to a bit of envy here, Dan. I'd love to teach such a class. You have a fabulous opportunity here to open and mold young minds. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #11 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 05:39:30 PT:
|
I'll consider including On the Road by Kerouac too, then. I was not aware that the particular book I have is not representative of Kerouac's work. I should have known better. I will likely include either Faulkner or Hemingway, but not both. I'd like to include a great many more authors, but I have only so much time. I think I've reached a fairly good balance at this point with about four days to spend on each novel and eight days for all of the poetry we will cover. Believe it or not, that narrows the number of novels to just seven. I am in desperate need of female authors from this time period, and the only ones that really stand out for me are Willa Cather and Gertrude Stein. Cather seems more appropriate for an undergraduate class. I had some trouble with Stein at the graduate level (at times, she borders on incoherence), although I have already explained that I really began my study of English literature at the graduate level. Regarding the time frame, I fully understand the beginning date of 1918 (end of World War I), but 1965 seems awfully arbitrary to me. 1968 would be a much more appropriate cut-off date, given that both Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated that year. Incidentally, Neal Cassady died that year too. So did John Steinbeck, Helen Keller, and Upton Sinclair. Andy Warhol was shot that year. It was the year of the Tet offensive and the year of the My Lai massacre. And, as you mentioned, it was the year that Tom Wolfe published The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. Also, 1968 would round out the number of years (50, rather than 47) in the covered span of time. (Note: I may be biased; 1968 was also the year I was born). But, I really do need to stick with the guidelines I have been given (the only requirement I have been given is the time period, so it only seems fair to remain within that framework). And while I will ultimately have a more difficult time choosing the list, I tremendously appreciate all of the input from everyone who has responded. Thanks. Dan B P.S.: I'll try to close parentheses I begin from here on out. (See post #7) [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #10 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 05:19:11 PT |
..that Master Ethan would be hep to the modern classics.It's too bad you couldnt teach a class on the 65 to 75 era.Wolfe,Vonegaut,Kesey,Brautigan,Robbins.....etc.....those were the days,,and I'm glad you brought all this up Dr. Dan.I knew there was going to come a time when I would be thankful that I saved all those boxes of old books.Reading is a really good thing.It teaches,and reminds one,of the language of the mind,and mouth.It seems so "low-tech",in this day and age of computers,,to read a book,,but books are food for the mind.dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 05:03:37 PT |
..I agree that Kerouac's poems are not so good,but I think,On the Road,will change your opinion.I think that this book was an important factor in defining that time frame,and very significant in the roots of beatnik culture,,which planted the seeds that eventually morphed,or mutated into the Hippies. Perhaps Charles Bukowski would be of interest to you,,if you dare. http://www.levity.com/corduroy/bukowski.htm dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 23, 2001 at 04:47:40 PT:
|
Dan, please do read On the Road. It is a benchmark American novel and fits your criteria beautifully. The Beat Generation heralded the Aquarian Age in many respects, and it would be very instructive to your heretofor sheltered young tabula rasa. Kerouac's later writing deteriorated into pathetic ramblings inbetween bouts of delirium tremens. It's too bad that Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test was not published until 1968, but it should definitely be in there since it follows naturally from Kerouac, and describes events of Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters just before 1965. You will probably need a Hemingway and a Faulkner to round things out. It should be a great class. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 04:17:26 PT:
|
I'll pick up and read a copy of Catch-22 in October (when I get paid). It was written in 1961. Strangely, I have yet to read it (I entered the English field rather late in life, and much of my time prior to that was spent either carousing in German bars and night clubs, or reading as much as I could shove into my brain about psychology. The latter activity is what led me to English; that is, my absorption with psychological study after psychological study led me to the realization that it is ludicrous to attempt a scientific study human behaviors. Psychology is like religion: it's all in the interpretation; therefore, it's all fallible, and often with disastrous consequences. But I digress. Heck, I was digressing on my digressions. I looked up some information on Catch-22, and it looks like the kind of book I want my students to read. Thanks for this very good suggestion. As for Hoffer, I will likely read him, too, but I think that most of his work is nonfiction, whereas I am chiefly concerned with fiction and poetry in these classes. But I do thank you for the suggestion. You have been quite helpful. And as for Kerouac . . . well, let's just say that I appreciate his philosophical underpinnings, but after reading Scattered Poems, I'm not very impressed with his writing ability. I know I should really read On the Road before making such a harsh statement, so please, once again, forgive my ignorance on the matter. I'll do my best to get ahold of that volume, as well (my focus has been American literature and modern American poetry; one would think I would have read these important works by now). I'll let you know what I think. Again, thanks dddd. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 03:08:47 PT |
might be Eric Hoffer.....here's a quote; "The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American...is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners...Should Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost confidence in their own way of life. " He's really quite good,and I believe he publish many items during that time......dddd http://www.freedomsnest.com/hoffer.html [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 02:54:26 PT |
Jack Kerouac tends to make people think outside the norms.I dont think an American literature class dealing with that era would be complete without at least mentioning him.....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 02:49:56 PT |
....A most intrigueing bit of trivia Dan. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate,as it was many years ago that I read it,,but perhaps Catch-22,by Joseph Heller,(i think?),would be good?,,,,(come to think of it,it may have been written after 65) dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 01:59:02 PT:
|
FoM, please remove post #2. For those who are wondering what it said, an updated version (without the excessive underlines) is available below. I have to use a different vocabulary when speaking to members of my family and such (they are often what many here would call "sheeple" in many respects), but I have been trying to show them that there is another side to this whole thing that everyone is ignoring: the government is using it to take away our freedoms. So far, I have only been marginally successful, but I'll keep trying. On another note, I am hoping that the university will offer me a chance to teach "American literature: 1918-1965" again next semester, and I am wondering if anyone can suggest an author (or perhaps a particular book) that fits the description (American, published between 1918 and 1965). I will continue to include Alex Haley's The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and a poetry component (including Allen Ginsberg's "America," which I am also using this semester), but I need two or three more books that speak to questioning authority, the insidiousness of governmental intrusion, and/or the consequences of violating liberty and freedom. Huxley and Orwell are British, so (sadly) I can't include them. But I know many of you have good ideas. Please consider tossing them my way. If you can think of some female authors, those will be especially important (you may have noticed the dearth of female authors in the above list. I will likely include a book by Willa Cather, too). If I don't use these works next semester, I plan to be somewhere next year that does afford me this opportunity. Thanks! Dan B A little trivia: Fe-Male = Iron Man, no? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 01:50:57 PT:
|
I have to use a different vocabulary when speaking to members of my family and such (they are often what many here would call "sheeple" in many respects), but I have been trying to show them that there is another side to this whole thing that everyone is ignoring: the government is using it to take away our freedoms. So far, I have only been marginally successful, but I'll keep trying. On another note, I am hoping that the university will offer me a chance to teach "American literature: 1918-1965" again next semester, and I am wondering if anyone can suggest an author (or perhaps a particular book) that fits the description (American, published between 1918 and 1965). I will continue to include Alex Haley's The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and a poetry component, but I need two or three more books that speak to questioning authority, the insidiousness of governmental intrusion, and/or the consequences of violating liberty and freedom. Huxley and Orwell are British, so (sadly) I can't include them. But I know many of you have good ideas. Please consider tossing them my way. If I don't use these works next semester, I plan to be somewhere next year that does afford me this opportunity. Thanks! Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by dddd on September 22, 2001 at 23:48:08 PT |
....The more I think about it,and read things like this article,,,the more I cannot believe what is going on.Where is everybody?..I have a bad feeling that all voices of dissent have been totally censored and suppressed in the national media...Less than two weeks after the events of 9/11,,the government has installed a new war on terrorism regime,and has used the media to make it all seem normal,and patriotic!In less than two weeks,with little,or no debate,with zero public input,the government has seized the opportunity to change everything,,and the numbed public is going right along with it. I am horrified at how this is being pulled off,and how smoothly the public has been scammed into acceptance of an absurd,undefined,and open ended "war"....It may sound strange,but the roots of totalitarianism have taken hold,in our supposed democratic government.The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to the threat on our country from our own ruling regime....Terrorist dont worry me much at all,but what's happening politically scares the shit out of me.The control of the media is an Orwellian nightmare,that is happening here,and now,as the masses of sheeple are spoonfed by dark,and invisible ministries of propaganda.; >"It will be difficult to measure the success of these different approaches. And it is likely to be equally difficult to tell when the war is over. Asked to define "victory" in the war against terrorism last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had difficulty coming up with a concise answer. After 500 words of hovering, he landed on his definition. "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. " "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. " "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. " Bush.." Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success." " Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause, by our efforts and by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. If someone out there feels that these statements are nothing to be alarmed about,then I would like to know what you do think. This "war on terrorism",is going to open more than one of the boxes of that bitch,Pandora. dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |