A complex war against terrorism

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Staff, 9/16/2001

WASHINGTONNO MORE THAN 48 hours into a new world, Joe Biden was talking about Pakistan - a very important topic but just the tip of the iceberg of complications that a genuine assault on international terrorism must confront.

The issue for the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - a key architect of the bipartisan structure that is responding to last Tuesday's horrid wake-up call - was how the United States should deal with the very real dangers to what's left of Pakistan's internal stability. Those dangers will arise should the country's military dictatorship comply with the United States' long list of demands for assistance in busting apart the structures that support the al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden.

Biden minimized none of the risks in Pakistan - an even more radical regime, nuclear weapons, a very large population of haters of American, and perhaps the largest source of killers for bin Laden's operation.

But in the end, he said, the consequences would have to be faced. They could not, he added, be used as a reason to excuse inaction. The necessity for Pakistan to choose - to help or hinder, to be with the good guys or the bad guys - can no longer be avoided.

Until last Tuesday, Pakistan was no less a source of hard intelligence about bin Laden's network, no less useful as air space or staging area for raids into Afghanistan, no less important as a means of sending very tough messages to the Taliban in Kabul.

What held us back was legitimate fear of dangerous consequences. But that is the essence of paralysis, a stance that to an extent has accepted terrorism as an unavoidable irritant in a still messy world - condemned and confronted it, to be sure, but within limitations.

The best example occurred just a few months ago, with barely any notice in Yemen, from which the bin Laden organization's attack on the USS Cole was executed. The mere arrival of some threats via telephone to the FBI and other security people there conducting our end of the investigation sent them all scurrying out of the country.

What's different is that now that America's and the world's vulnerability to mass murder stands exposed, the concern about consequences should be no less great even as it is no longer permitted to restrain participation in an international struggle.

Pakistan, however, is almost easy by comparison to the other choices that will have to be made around the world, each with consequences. That is why first Secretary of State Colin Powell and then President Bush himself referred to Pakistan by name, even underlining their insistence on a favorable response and their show-me skepticism that it would be completely forthcoming.

What the administration has chosen not to communicate much to this point, however, is the extent of these tough choices that lie ahead, They involve state sponsors like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Libya, where what was either tacitly tolerable or not confronted can no longer be if our campaign is genuine.

But they also involve countries that have not been sponsors of terrorism, that have even been friendly and helpful to the United States, but who will be asked to do more than they have and to tolerate less within their borders than they have.

Money for terrorists moves globally and electronically in large amounts and is also raised from rich and poor alike in several countries; people are trained and equipped; people move around, often covertly, as in the United States, but often with the knowledge of authorities; and sophisticated equipment is used to connect disparate elements of elaborate networks.

Whether it's Egypt or Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, Russia or China, what people blinked at before or tolerated has now become complicit in the system of terror that has targeted the United States. Responding will involve risks, both to those societies and to Americans who might need to face consequences at the gasoline pump and elsewhere.

But a response that focuses on bin Laden alone and fails to confront the universal problem will only put a dent in an organism that has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to sprout new appendages. This is what the Bush administration, commendably, has vowed not to do.

Following through, however, is going to be far more difficult than Americans have as yet been told. As the front-line forces, they deserve to know the dimensions and potential costs of this new struggle.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is [email protected].

This story ran on page D7 of the Boston Globe on 9/16/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.