New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 02:56pm Sep 22, 2001 EST (#9653 of 9655)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Maybe we are growing up a little.

I thought this editorial was wonderful, and reflected some very solid, sensible decision making on the part of the Bush administration's "new war council."

Calibrating the Use of Force http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/22/opinion/22SAT1.html

" It is a reasonable presumption that the terrorists who attacked New York and Washington aimed not just to kill American civilians but also to draw the United States into an indiscriminate and brutish military response that might attract Muslims around the world to their cause. President Bush seems to understand that danger, but with war fever rising in Washington and some of his own advisers recommending a multi-front military campaign, he must design a measured and precise battle plan.

" The issue is not whether the United States should respond forcefully and decisively to these murderous assaults. With some 6,000 civilians feared lost in the attack on the World Trade Center, America has every right to strike back against its assailants, wherever they may be. But in doing so, Washington must be smart in selecting targets and cognizant of the political consequences that its military operations are likely to produce in the Islamic world. The outcome of the war on terrorism should be the eradication or at least the containment of terrorism, not the creation of a new wave of anti-American hostility.

" Mr. Bush clearly recognizes the need for a broadly based approach. It should be as wide- ranging as he suggested Thursday night when he spoke of directing "every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network." The diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement aspects of American policy should be just as important as the military component, perhaps more so.

"The most sensitive issue, however, will be the use of force. Washington must guard against the perception abroad that the war against terrorism is simply another form of American arrogance or even the enforced expansion of globalization to nations that already resent the spread of Western culture and commerce. These interpretations may seem illogical and improbable to Americans, but they are all too possible in many of the countries where combat operations could soon commence.

(more)

rshowalter - 02:56pm Sep 22, 2001 EST (#9654 of 9655)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

" Mr. Bush is currently considering two different variants of a war against terrorism. One would target individuals and countries linked to the Sept. 11 attacks, a list that so far appears limited to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban government in Afghanistan that gives it sanctuary. The other course would extend the fight to countries more broadly linked to international terrorism, possibly including Iraq.

" The wiser policy, for now — and the one Mr. Bush seems to favor as a first phase — is to limit retaliation to terror groups and governments that Washington can demonstrate were complicit in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. To sustain international support for its campaign, the United States should first present its case publicly to the world, offering hard investigative or intelligence evidence that the targets it has chosen are appropriate ones. The Reagan administration rallied the world to its side in 1983 when it laid out evidence before the United Nations proving that it was Soviet warplanes that destroyed a South Korean passenger airliner that had strayed over Russian territory.

" When Mr. Bush orders American forces into action, the attack should fit the target. If the aim is to capture Osama bin Laden in the Afghan countryside, or to destroy terror training camps there, Mr. Bush does not necessarily need to bomb Kabul. If the goal is also to force the Taliban leadership from power, the Pentagon should devise a strategy that spares civilians and does not require American forces to occupy the Afghan capital.

" The administration has reached out to many prospective partners, including NATO members, Russia, China and India. Wisely, it has recognized the importance of enlisting major Muslim nations like Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia in the antiterrorist coalition. Osama bin Laden's network is active in 60 countries, most of them with large Muslim populations. Cooperation with the governments of these nations will be crucial in locating and arresting terrorists and disrupting their communications and financing. America is fighting a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy. Military means alone will not assure success."

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense