Debate Over Targets Highlights Difficulty Of War on Terrorism
Call for Broad Action by Some Officials Runs Into Concerns About Diplomatic Fallout

By Steven Mufson and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 21, 2001; Page A25

Though President Bush last night renewed his vow to pursue not only terrorists but countries that "provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," his administration is grappling with the diplomatic and military complications of translating that pledge into action.

Bush promised a war on terror that will be waged against "every terrorist group of global reach." At the same time, Bush was expansive about possible attacks on sovereign nations. "From this day forward," he declared, "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Despite that vigorous assertion, there is little consensus within the administration on what military action would effectively cripple terrorist networks or punish their hosts without making U.S. relations with the Muslim world a casualty of war -- with the exception of an attack on alleged terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan that has hosted him.

In addition to striking sites in Afghanistan, sources in and close to the administration said, Bush policymakers are debating a broad array of actions, such as bombing biological weapons facilities in Iraq, or launching Special Forces raids against suspected terrorists in other countries, such as Syria and Lebanon. Pakistani newspapers have also reported that the administration has warned the Islamabad government that it might strike at Pakistan's nuclear weapons if its leaders decide to back the Taliban in its confrontation with the United States.

"You have this sort of debate because your enemy is so amorphous," said one Defense Department official. "It's a very, very interesting debate."

Senior Bush foreign policymakers agree that their top priority is to strike bin Laden and his underlings inside the portion of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban.

But even as U.S. warplanes and aircraft carriers speed toward the Persian Gulf region and central Asia, the administration is debating the breadth, intensity and targets of future military operations in its planned counterattack on terrorism, officials said yesterday.

Sources both in and close to the administration said some top officials, most notably Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, are pushing hard for a broader range of targets, including Iraq, even though administration officials say there is little evidence that Iraq was behind last week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

Other officials, most notably Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, have argued that such military actions would wreck the coalition of countries that Powell and Bush have been trying to construct to aid the fight against terrorism. In last night's speech, Bush did not mention Iraq once.

A Pentagon official said discussions about targets outside Afghanistan have focused on diplomatic repercussions that might outweigh the virtues of such strikes. Powell said attacks on multiple targets across the Middle East would make it look as if the United States was waging war on Islam. A senior Arab diplomat has warned that the administration officials "should not attach their personal agendas to the coalition" and urged them to "keep the focus on legitimate targets."

Some conservatives fear that simply maintaining the coalition of allies will become an end rather than a means for accomplishing anti-terrorism goals, and they fret that efforts to keep a variety of countries together will cripple the administration's ability to take bold action beyond Afghanistan.

"Coalition building has run amok," said Richard Perle, a senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration. "The point about a coalition is can it achieve the right purpose, not can you get a lot of members."

The Project for the New American Century has collected 37 signatures for a letter asserting that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." The signatories included Perle; William Schneider, a sometime adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and chairman of the Defense Science Board; and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick.

But influential voices close to the administration, such as Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to Bush's father, have argued for more narrowly targeting bin Laden.

One possible resolution to the targeting debate might be simply to postpone decisions. An administration official familiar with the debate over Iraq said, "Do I think we would be better off without Saddam? Yes. But it's a question of timing."

Asked about Iraq and other possible targets, Powell sidestepped the issue yesterday. "The president has a clear idea in his mind and has given us our instructions as to how we will begin this campaign and what the focus of our efforts will be initially," he said at a news conference.

Appearing on NBC-TV's "Today" show, Rumsfeld said "there is no rift developing in the administration" on the issue. Responding to a question regarding a story in yesterday's New York Times, he said, "The Department of State, the Department of Defense and the president are all on the same sheet of music."

The targeting dilemma is related to the difficulty of pinpointing the culprits in last week's attacks. So far, investigators have discovered apparent links between many of the hijackers in the attacks and oil-rich Saudi Arabia.

In the past, U.S. officials have complained that Saudi Arabia did not fully cooperate with U.S. efforts to catch people responsible for the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force barracks, where 19 U.S. servicemen were killed and hundreds injured.

But Saudi Arabia, a longtime U.S. ally and a stabilizing force in world oil markets, this week pledged its support for U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

Many Bush administration officials say the anti-terrorism campaign might actually create new opportunities to heal relations with longtime foes in the Gulf region. Iran is one example. The State Department has alleged that Iran supports a variety of militant organizations, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

But Iran is cooperating with current U.S. efforts to isolate the Taliban by sealing its own border with Afghanistan, raising hopes of broader collaboration, officials said.

During a meeting with European Union officials yesterday, Powell welcomed Iran's strong condemnation of terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks and described the steps the United States would like Iran to take -- including a crackdown on all terrorist groups now active there, a senior State Department official said. The expectation is that the Europeans would convey those sentiments to Tehran.

Staff writers Walter Pincus and Alan Sipress contributed to this report.