Are We Facing Bush's Quagmire?

Distrubuted by Global Beat to Knight Ridder News Wire, 10/9/01
Michael Klare (links to online Media Guide)

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

The likelihood that we face a long drawn-out conflict was raised by the President himself in his television address announcing the first U.S. strikes on Sunday [October 7]. "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 that the Pentagon is preparing for an extended campaign in Afghanistan aimed at the complete overthrow of the Taliban regime and attacks on 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, along with air strikes against states that are said to aid the terrorists. Likely candidates include Islamic extremist groups in Lebanon, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and the Philippines. It is also likely that Washington will step up its indirect war against the guerrilla groups in Colombia. In some cases, these operations may be relatively modest. But others could evolve into much larger campaigns, entailing multiple air strikes and the extended deployment of ground troops.

President Bush has also 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 U.S. attack: the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Ever since the attack on the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, members of the President's inner circle have hinted at their desire to go after Hussein and finish the job that, it is said, was left unfinished after the Gulf War of 1991.

A new round of attacks on the Iraqi regime would probably entail air and missile strikes on Hussein's numerous palaces and residences, along with key government buildings in Baghdad. Presumably, the strikes would continue until Hussein 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 Iraqi.

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 has not placed any limits on the scope or duration of U.S. military operations. For now, the President is acting with the support of the American people. But he stands to lose that support if he embarks on an open-ended campaign against unnamed enemies. With all the lives at stake, he owes it to the American people to spell out his intentions and invite public debate on the most desirable U.S. strategy.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., a advisory board member of Foreign Policy In Focus, and the author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (Metropolitan Books).

COPYRIGHT 2001, Global Beat

This page was last modified on Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:53 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.