WASHINGTON REPORT

Assault on Terrorism Planned Bush: 11 September Attacks Were "Acts of War"

By GORDON I. PETERSON, Senior Editor

Within hours of the horrific terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September, President George W. Bush launched a comprehensive and multifaceted campaign to safeguard the United States, to identify and bring to justice those responsible for the slaughter of more than 5,000 victims, and to eradicate the specter of international terrorism.

"The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror," Bush said following a meeting with his National Security Council on 12 September. "They were acts of war."

Acting in his capacity as commander in chief in what has been described as the first war of the 21st century, Bush approved a range of domestic, military, and diplomatic actions to deal with the crisis, but he cautioned the American people to be patient, saying the nation's campaign against terrorism will take time and resolve.

"Victory against terrorism will not take place in a single battle," Bush said during his weekly radio address on 15 September, "but in a series of decisive actions against terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them."

Wanted, Dead or Alive

Bush and other members of his administration confirmed that Osama bin Laden, said to be in hiding in Afghanistan with the approval of the country's ruling Taliban cult, is a prime suspect in the terrorist attacks.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, the former four-star Army general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, also made it clear that bin Laden was not the only suspect on the U.S. list of those likely responsible for the most costly enemy attack on U.S. soil since the surprise Japanese airstrike on Pearl Harbor 60 years ago.

Powell said that bin Laden could be compared to the chairman of the board of a holding company that included "dozens of terrorist organizations" around the world.

Bush refuted bin Laden's denial that he was responsible for the terrorist attacks. "Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect," Bush said on 17 September, "and the people who house him, encourage him, and provide food, comfort, or money are on notice."

Following a Department of Defense briefing on the mobilization of up to 35,000 members of the National Guard and U.S. reserve components, Bush told a group of defense correspondents at the Pentagon that bin Laden reminded him of a wanted poster that was once displayed in the Old West.
"It said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive,'" Bush said. "All I want and America wants is for him to be brought to justice."

An Assault Against Civilization

During the days immediately following the hijacking of the four commercial airliners used in the barbaric strike against the international symbols of U.S. commercial and military power, Bush reemphasized that his administration's antiterrorism actions also would be aimed at nations providing sanctuary to known international terrorists.

Meeting with the president and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft at Camp David, Md., on 15 September, Powell said that he was pleased with the international response to U.S. calls for support in the war on terrorism.

"I think every civilized nation in the world recognizes that this was an assault not just against the United States, but against civilization," he said. Preliminary casualty lists showed that citizens from more than 60 countries were lost or missing in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Pakistan initially reported 650 missing. Great Britain listed approximately 100 dead and 200 missing. Chile claimed three dead and 250 missing.

NATO immediately reaffirmed its treaty commitment to the United States following the attacks. At a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels on 12 September, NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson said, "If it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty."

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO members shall be considered an attack against all.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expressed the mood of Congress in praising the Council's action. "If we expect to win the war against these criminals and their ilk," Skelton said, "all nations must work together to fight the scourge of international terrorism."

International Rally of Support

The U.N. General Assembly also strongly condemned the attacks and issued a Security Council resolution on 12 September calling on all nations to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of those responsible.

Within days of the attacks, Powell said that strong expressions of support also had been received from many nations around the world. Beyond traditional U.S. allies in NATO, the Americas and the Pacific, offers of assistance were received from such countries as Syria, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia. The offers of assistance from Pakistan and India, observers say, will be of material benefit to U.S. efforts to apprehend bin Laden.

Powell firmly and unequivocally underscored the president's determination to carry the fight against international terrorism to those nations that support or harbor known terrorists within their borders.

"If we find a particular country, especially ... [any] that might be serving as a haven or is a well-known supporter of this kind of activity, and they are simply unresponsive--and we deem that unresponsiveness to be contributing to additional terrorism or to the fertile ground in which terrorism thrives--then that will certainly affect the kind of relationship we are going to have with them in the future," Powell said in a State Department press briefing on 14 September.

"We are going to use all the tools and weapons at our disposal to fight this campaign and win this war," Powell said.

Rumsfeld: "Sustained Effort"

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told Pentagon reporters on 16 September that the war against the terrorist attackers would not be measured in days or weeks. Rather, it would be a "broad, sustained effort," measured in years, that would encompass U.S. diplomatic, political, economic, and financial strength as well as U.S. military strength.

The national outpouring of grief, outrage, and patriotism that swept the United States last month could leave no doubt that U.S. public opinion is firmly behind the Bush administration's strategy for dealing with the crisis. A New York Times/CBS News poll revealed that 85 percent of Americans said the United States should take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks. Almost all respondents said they would favor going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible for the attacks.

According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, a majority of Americans surveyed also said they would accept a wide range of actions to fight terrorism, including the stationing of armed marshals on commercial airliners. The poll revealed that 81 percent also said the United States should wait until it is "completely sure who is specifically responsible" before retaliating. NBC pollster Peter Hart said the poll's results indicate that U.S. citizens are willing to be patient as President Bush and his advisors decide how to respond.

Swift Action from Congress

Congressional lawmakers of both parties rallied in a rare display of political unity. An early joint resolution, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and cosponsored by all 100 U.S. Senators, expressed the sense of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in sending a message to the world that the United States would not be cowed by the terrorists' attacks.

Later, Congress approved another joint resolution regarding the use of military force in response to the terrorist attacks. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) explained that the resolution would authorize the use of military force even before the president or Congress knows with certainty who was responsible for the events of 11 September.

"In doing so," Levin said, "we will be empowering the president and expressing our strong support for him and for the men and women in our armed forces."

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) was equally forceful. "Regrettably, these loathsome, cowardly acts of terrorism have deeply wounded our country, but they have not and will never dull the spirit and resolution of the American people," Warner said.

Bush: "Get Ready"

Vice President Dick Cheney revealed additional chilling details about the terrorist attack during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cheney told viewers that the Secret Service had received a credible threat against Air Force One at roughly the same time that the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 had crashed into the Pentagon. Told that there was a real risk of additional attacks against Washington, D.C., because of a report that up to six aircraft had been hijacked, Bush approved Cheney's recommendation to have Air Force F-16 aircraft intercept and, as a last resort, shoot down any incoming aircraft that did not comply with the order to move away from the city.

Bush told Cheney that he wanted to return to the White House immediately, but Cheney counseled against it because of the real risk and incredible confusion then rampant. According to Cheney, his own most important concern was about presidential succession in the event of additional attacks against the country. Describing the early hours of the crisis, Cheney said, "We would have been absolute fools not to go into 'button-down' mode."

Bush later delivered an unequivocal message to the nation's men and women in uniform. Meeting with his senior advisors at Camp David to plan the first steps in the nation's antiterrorist offensive, Bush again told reporters that an act of war had been declared on the United States by terrorists.

"My message for everybody who wears the uniform is to 'Get Ready,'" the president said. *

Vieques: "Train as We Fight"

Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah) responds to questions from Senior Editor Gordon I. Peterson on Navy and Marine Corps training on Vieques Island.

Sea Power: Why do you believe it is important for the Navy and Marine Corps to have a single site to conduct the full spectrum of live-fire training?
Hansen: During my 20 years of service on the House Armed Services Committee [HASC], every military leader has testified that the military must "train as we fight." If that principle is going to be anything other than hollow words, it must include the ability for different units--from different services, with different weapons--to train together in realistic scenarios under the increased tension and danger inherent in live-fire conditions. Combined-arms live-fire training is the final exam, and our nation should never again allow that exam to be conducted under the sights of enemy guns.

What accounts for your opposition to the referendum in November that would allow voters on Vieques to determine the future of the Navy's ranges?
I have consistently opposed the idea that fundamental national security matters should be subject to the whims of a local referendum. I strongly opposed President Clinton's decision to set this dangerous precedent, and I hope that President Bush will support our efforts to repeal this bad idea. Our Constitution does not envision each state or territory setting its own national security policy--or each community limiting how the military can train on federal lands set aside for that purpose.

How do you think the full House will receive the proposals for Vieques that are contained in the HASC markup of the Defense Authorization Act?
Our legislation does two things. First, it repeals the requirement for the local referendum, as requested by the secretary of the Navy and the president. Second, it requires the Navy and Marine Corps to identify an alternative range that is both equivalent and available before they can depart Vieques. This requirement is fully consistent with testimony from Navy leaders. I am confident that a majority of my colleagues will see this as both good security policy and plain common sense.

Do you expect the Navy's current study to address all issues of interest to the HASC?

I hope so. We have already met with representatives from CNA [Center for Naval Analyses] and plan to meet soon with the distinguished officers who are leading the review. While each of these leaders has my full confidence, I do hope to share some of my concerns with them. In particular, I think it is critical that any review starts by assessing the military capabilities we need to field and the training requirements necessary to fully meet these needs. Only then can we compare current training at Vieques--and all alternatives--to this standard.

Realistic assessments of issues such as cost, schedule, local and environmental regulations, impact on training cycles and tempo, and overall effect on predeployment combat readiness also must be included. I also am concerned that their work not "dumb down" training requirements in order to fit a less capable alternative training site than Vieques. That kind of lowering of the bar--especially regarding live-fire and combined-arms training--would have dangerous repercussions for military operations across the country and around the world.

In the end, what do you see as the "best case" for resolving the Vieques impasse?

Rather than "best case," I prefer to think of the "bottom line." The best case would depend on one's agenda, and there are too many already at play. The bottom line for me is realistic training of our Navy and Marine Corps team.

The CNO [chief of naval operations] and the commandant [of the Marine Corps] have both testified that this training saves lives and without it many would perish. I hope we can all put other agendas aside and focus on that reality. If we can provide quality realistic training at another location, so be it. But if we cannot, or if some critical portion of the training would be sacrificed, we should be prepared to stay in Vieques and improve our relations with our fellow American citizens.

Public health and safety should never be put at risk. They are not on Vieques, but the military must commit to do more. They can and should be--and in most cases are--better neighbors, worthy of the trust and support of surrounding communities. If the president, the secretary of defense, and the Congress were prepared to make that case, I still believe that the majority of the patriotic citizens of Puerto Rico would support them.

How serious is the problem of civilian encroachment on military training facilities and ranges?

The problem of encroachment on military training facilities and ranges is one of the most serious and complex problems facing the Pentagon today. The natural frictions of civilian growth around even our most remote bases have always been issues, but they can usually be managed through local communication and cooperation. Planning night-flying at our fighter bases to reduce noise is a good example of a low-cost local workaround.

Lately, though, I have seen the issue get much more complex and organized in two critical areas. We have seen increased political pressure--from Vieques, to Okinawa and Korea--where a vocal minority of the population does not want a U.S. military presence. It is very disturbing that some of these protests are supported by government leaders and others hostile to American security interests, such as Cuba's Fidel Castro and Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

The other new threat is the proliferation of litigation and overzealous application of environmental laws and regulations. In many of these cases, the military is effectively punished for its excellent stewardship of the resources entrusted to them. Many of our military installations are important sanctuaries for wildlife precisely because of the care they take, and the substantial financial investment they make, in managing these lands. National security needs to be restored to an equal status with environmental protection when our nation makes these decisions before the next endangered species is the well- trained American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine.