WHAT ARE BUSH'S REAL WAR PLANS?

[jacdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

WHAT ARE BUSH?S REAL WAR PLANS?

By Jack A. Smith
Mid-Hudson National People?s Campaign, 10/05/01

What is the Bush administration really up to in its declared ?war on
terrorism??  There is cause to doubt the recent emphasis of ?measured
reasonableness? now embellishing White House war plans.

In his bellicose speech soon after the Sept. 11 terror attacks,
President Bush indicated  he planned to attack Afghanistan and probably
several other countries over the next few years.  Key administration
figures immediately began informing the press that the U.S. might war
against Iraq and other ?rogue states? that have long been on
Washington?s hit list.

In recent days, however, the White House has softened its rhetoric, at
least in public.  The talk of an open-ended several-year ?war? has been
muffled.  Now the talk is about a limited war against the Afghan
government.  What?s up?

Obviously, the Bush administration is aware that the broad coalition it
is constructing may fall apart if the U.S. appears too belligerent at
this stage.  The Arab nations and most of the European allies have made
it clear they do not want a long series of wars or massive retaliation
against one or more states.  Also, it is apparent that U.S. antiwar
forces are gathering swiftly and could eventually pose political
problems for the White House.

But has the administration given up on the kind of massive retaliation
Bush first promised a couple of week ago?  It doesn?t seem so.  An
indication of what is going on appeared in the New York Times Oct. 4 in
a front-page story by veteran Washington correspondent R.W. Apple Jr. 
He wrote:

?Carefully limited military action against Afghanistan may well begin
some time this month, ranking officials here and in London say, but much
about it remains uncertain....For the moment, Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell appears to have won the big argument [within the
administration] about the scope of the action [he wanted a more limited
war, at least at first--JS].  What policy makers call ?the Powell
option?--concentrating the first phase of operations on Osama bin Laden,
the suspected terrorist leader, and on his network--has prevailed over
the broader approach, possibly involving an attempt to oust Saddam
Hussein in Iraq, favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz
and others.

?But the question is likely to be reopened later, if Mr. bin Laden can
be effectively dealt with.  Mr. Wolfowitz has been quiet lately, at
least in public, but allies on the Republican right, such as William
Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Richard Perle, a former
State Department official, have kept up the pressure.  A Powell ally
said, ?This dispute will be invented and reinvented in months and years
to come.??

Thus, while President Bush  appears preoccupied at the moment with a
?limited military action against Afghanistan?  and the removal of its
government, the split within the administration remains to be resolved.
Influential Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz?s boss, and Vice
President Cheney, are assumed to entertain visions of a more adventurist
policy.  Rumsfeld is openly discussing a long-term "Cold War,"
punctuated by more dramatic military encounters when desired. At the
same time, the Israeli government is now warning against a Bush
administration response that will be ?soft on terrorists.?    Times
warhawk columnist William Safire, in the same issue with Appel?s
article, criticized the possibility that the U.S. would go after bin
Laden and the Afghanistan government, but might not launch ?protective
strikes? against Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, as many on the right are
insisting.  This reactionary clamor will intensify in time.

Afghanistan evidently is target number one--but today?s less
inflammatory rhetoric from Washington does not rule out an eventual
target number two, three or more. Indeed, a more focused approach now
may make probable a ?broader? approach later.

(end)

=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message