A TIME FOR EXTREMISM
Bruce Anderson says that America must
deal with the rogue states as well as with the terrorists
SUCH an attack was not unexpected, nor was America unprepared, yet the precautions proved useless, That is the most alarming aspect of this outrage. Over the past few years, agencies in the Pentagon and the State Department have devoted a lot of time and money to the study of international terrorism and had been working on the assumption that there would be a major assault on a major American city. But they were unable to prevent it. They also knew about Bin Laden. Most intelligence sources believe that he was involved, although he may have had accomplices, including a sovereign state. Yet for all their foreknowledge of his tireless malice, the Americans were unable to thwart him.
There might seem to be no greater paradox in the history of civilisation. America the global colossus, leading the world in scientific mastery, the possessor of unlimited military capability — but unable to defend itself against a handful of fanatics armed with knives, The gap between mighty America and its puny adversaries is far smaller than an inventory of American power would suggest.
In the deployment of its might, the US is afflicted by two psychological problems, and until these are cured, the elephant will be vulnerable to the mouse. Technological power is nothing without the will to use it, while Americans cannot defend themselves merely by guarding their own borders. Unless there is now a new departure, a new hardness, in American strategic thinking, matters could get worse.
On Tuesday evening, there were rumours that biological warfare experts had flown up to New York from their headquarters in Georgia just to make sure that the clouds in Manhattan were composed only of dust and smoke. A wise precaution, even if superfluous. Next time, it might not be. If they have the means, suicidal terrorists inflamed with hatred of a foe whom they have demonised will use any available weaponry.
American friends report a mood of grim resolution and solidarity, as if the entire nation was assembled under Old Glory (apart from Arab Americans, who might be wise to remain indoors). Within hours, however, the recriminations are bound to begin, and the CIA will be blamed. It is not that easy. Intelligence agencies have two basic sources of information: signal intelligence (sigint) and human intelligence (humint). Bin Laden is too cunning to use electronic means of communicating with his followers, so there is hardly any sigint, while the difficulties of acquiring Afghan humint are probably insuperable.
That brings us to the core of the problem. Bin Laden has been planning this operation for years: he may have started straight after the failure of his first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center. But he could not have prepared his onslaught if he had been a mere terrorist, operating furtively in a hostile environment. He was able to bring his plans to fell fruition because he enjoyed the protection of a rogue state.
Unless that protection now ends, with Bin Laden and his associates handed over dead or alive, Afghanistan will pay a sanguinary price. There have indeed been indications that the Taleban government is rapidly rethinking its relationship with Bin Laden. Even among the Taleban, there may be a difference between a rogue state and a kamikaze one.
But it is not enough to act against Afghanistan. With globalisation, there is a global threat. Any state which collapses into chaos could become a terrorist haven: there is now a small-scale version in Kosovo. If any such state has a basic industrial infrastructure, terrorists could use it to make chemical or biological weapons. Early mapmakers devised fanciful descriptions of their terra incognita, but we cannot afford to imitate them. 'Here there be anthropophagi may be harmless; 'here there be terrorists' is not. We must assist, and if necessary coerce, any state which is afflicted with enclaves of anarchy or terrorism until they are eradicated. That leaves the problem of the states which embrace terrorism. There are suggestions that Saddam may have assisted Bin Laden. Though they have a history of enmity, there have been many examples of enemies allying against a greater enemy, and even if Saddam was not involved in this outrage, there is a danger. It might spur him on to a feat of emulation. He is on the verge of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and is believed to be suffering from cancer, possibly dying. He does not strike one as a man who would find deathbed comfort in a peaceful posterity. He is more likely to take his cue from Hitler's last days in the bunker, and he may possess the terrible weapons which Hitler only dreamt of. The West has been pinpricking Iraq for the last few years, with our policy-makers arguing as to whether we should impose ineffective sanctions or even more ineffective sanctions. This is selfdeception. Saddam went to war with the West in late July 1990. Yet we have allowed him to recover and to set the tempo of conflict. It is now necessary to bring this war to a close, with his irrevocable defeat.
The other rogue states are less of a threat. Castro and Gaddafi are ageing, North Korea is starving, while the Iranian mullahs no longer rule unchallenged. In Syria, the new leader is still cautiously establishing himself. Although it is likely that terrorist groups are operating from Syrian territory. Bashir Assad seems unlikely to risk a confrontation with America. Assad II will use Palestine to explain all the troubles in the region, although an honourable peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not satisfy Bin Laden, his successors, or the other terrorists. They want Israel to go the way of the World Trade Center. Equally, the footage of rejoicing Palestinians is stomach-turning; such people are always their own worst enemy. But despite that vileness, we should beware, lest fury cloud our judgment. The struggle for peace must continue. Bin Laden cannot be allowed to prevent a just settlement for the Palestinians, even if many of them applaud him.
But no acceptable peace deal would remove the threat from Iraq and Afghanistan. They must be dealt with, by whatever methods are necessary, including Western casualties. The Americans may now realise that unless they are prepared to use their armed forces to strike at adversaries, the adversaries will strike at them. It is better that trained men should be in harm's way than an entire civilian population.
Ten years ago, after an effortless victory in Kuwait, which seemed to signal the emergence of the US as a hyperpower, George Bush senior spoke of a New World Order. That, alas, was just a sound-bite. His son now has to make it a reality, or there will be repetitions of 11 September, on a much bloodier scale. As Gladstone said: 'The resources of civilisation are not exhausted.' But it is also time to remember Barry Goldwater's dictum: 'Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.'
Previous page
