|
The War on Terror
With Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, Jan. 24, 2002; Noon EST
Sept. 11 propelled terrorism and homeland security to the top of President Bush's domestic agenda. But for the first eight months of his term, according to officials and records, Bush's national security and foreign policy teams focused on slowly putting together a plan to deal with al Qaeda -- the goal first to "roll back," then "permanently erode," then "eliminate" Osama bin Laden's organization.
Washington Post staff writer Barton Gellman detailed the Bush administration's plans to deal with al Qaeda and terrorism in "A Strategy's Cautious Evolution, which continues his two-part series, "The Covert Hunt for bin Laden." He was online to talk about it on Thursday, Jan. 24.
The transcript follows.
Gellman worked on the Pentagon beat a month during the Persian Gulf War, and in the Jerusalem bureau from 1994-97. He was The Post's diplomatic correspondent from 1998-99, and currently works on special projects in the newspaper's New York bureau.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Good afternoon, Bart, and welcome. You reported in your Jan. 20 story that for the first few months of his administration, President Bush's policies on terrorism generally followed the same path as those of the Clinton administration. This went on despite criticism of the Clinton policies from advisers such as Condoleeza Rice, who said the Clinton approach was "empty rhetoric that made us look feckless." Was that continuation of policy because the Bush White House didn't put a big premium on fighting terrorism and al Qaeda specifically? Or was it simply that after only eight months in, much change wasn't likely yet? washingtonpost.com:
Story: A Strategy's Cautious Evolution (Post, Jan. 20, 2002)
Barton Gellman: A combination of factors. Rice and others didn't like Clinton's approach, but didn't spend too much time on it themselves because they had other priorities. The press of business in the first eight months, and the absence of many confirmed political appointees, slowed things down. They left terrorism as an issue for working groups two and three levels below the President. At working levels the administration was working toward a broader and more aggressive policy, but the cabinet-rank "principals committee" -- in its only meeting on the subject, Sept. 4 -- did not commit itself to carrying it out.
Fairfax, Va.:
Is there any buzz about the CNN reports on the French book that alleges that the Bush administration stalled the investigation into al Qaeda and bin Laden so they could make an oil deal with the Taliban? (At a time when we didn't recognize them as the government of Afghanistan.)
The sources seem quite credible: one of the authors wrote the official French report on bin Laden, and no one would know much more about investigations in the Middle East than John O'Neill. It also explains O'Neill's departure from the Bureau: He seemed the exact sort of agent who would have no tolerance for politics interfering in a criminal investigation.
But I haven't heard anything else about it since. Have you?
Barton Gellman: I spent some time investigating the allegations of the French book. I have concluded they are very poorly supported and, in their main contentions, untrue.
O'Neill's reasons for departure are documented in enormous and credibly sourced detail in a recent New Yorker piece by Lawrence Wright. They have nothing to do with the French allegation.
The central allegation of the French book ("Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth") is that Bush slowed down the al Qaeda investigation because he wanted a Central Asian oil/gas pipeline through Afghanistan, and he was courting the Taliban. As proof the authors submit a garbled chronology that mixes up Clinton and Bush activities.
Unocal, the interested U.S. oil company, promoted an Afghan pipeline route through the early and mid-'90s, beginning before the Taliban came to power. By the end of Clinton's term, political and economic considerations led Unocal to abandon interest. It did not change its mind under Bush, and there is no evidence whatever that any Bush emissary tried to restart the Afghan discussions. Zal Khalilzad, an NSC staffer, once worked for Unocal and promoted this route, but long before Bush came to office he became an anti-Taliban superhawk.
I wrote the French authors to try to reconcile my reporting with theirs, and they didn't reply.
As for credentials, anyone can say he wrote a report "for" an intelligence agency. The author doesn't say he was in the French agency's employ, and if his other work is of this standard the French government should hope not.
Washington, D.C.:
It appears that terrorism around the world will never disappear in its entirety. Has the U.S. shouldered a war against terrorism that will, in effect, never be over?
Barton Gellman: It's hard to predict a complete victory, defined as the end of all terrorism. But transnational problems ebb and flow -- terrorist hijackings were very big in the 1970s and died out thereafter until Sept. 11 -- and I can imagine a time when al Qaeda and its cousins are much less troublesome than today.
Washington, D.C.:
What do you make of reports that OBL received plastic surgery, faked his death, escaped to Somalia, etc.? How do you filter out all the bogus reports and obtain useful information?
Barton Gellman: You filter out speculation and bogus reports by looking for evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There has been none made public for this particular scenario, and a lot of very good reporters, as well as intelligence resources, have pursued it.
Silver Spring, Md.:
This question deals indirectly with terrorism, but more directly on the Israel/Palestine problem and your expertise gained in the Post's Jerusalem bureau. A recent Post series revealed that career CIA staff have been hamstrung over the years frustrated by pro-Israel politicization of the agency's Middle East policy (e.g., pressure from pro-Israel Congressmen to avoid rapprochement with Iran, because Israel sees it as one of the two worst threats to its existence). Now we see Sen. Lieberman campaigning for the U.S. to attack Iraq -- mainly because Israel would like us to do that. In light of such behind-the-scenes policymaking, do you believe U.S. foreign policy is increasingly hostage to the need to support Israel regardless of the Jewish state's actions? What can average Americans do to make sure U.S. policy in Palestine/Israel is balanced, fair, and just?
Barton Gellman: I don't think Michael Dobbs reported that the CIA was hamstrung by Israel. He did report that it, and U.S. policy, were influenced by Israeli suasion and lobbying by its allies. That's not quite unique -- other U.S. allies, including the UK and other NATO partners, have managed the trick -- though I don't think any have as effective a lobby. Americans can and do inform themselves as best they can about what their government is doing, judge for themselves whether that serves U.S. interests, and hold leaders accountable.
Arlington, Va.:
What do you think of the conventional wisdom that it's only a matter of time before the U.S. turns its sights, literally, on a new target, whether it be Somalia or Iraq?
If yes, do you think the attack will be proceeded by the deliberate coalition-building that attended the Afghanistan campaign, or will it be more of a unilateral strike?
Barton Gellman: My crystal ball is no better than yours. Personally, I doubt that the campaign will confine itself to Afghanistan. Indeed, it has not done so across the range of U.S. instruments of power -- economic, political, intelligence, etc. If there's an overt military component somewhere else, the Bush adminstration will try to form the same sort of ad hoc coalition that has been Washington's main standby since the Persian Gulf War.
Washington, D.C.:
Having reported it out, what do you think of the way the Bush administration has handled things since Sept. 11? Obviously, terrorism is now the top priority of the government -- how do you think they're handling it?
Barton Gellman: The government has orchestrated the full range of its power with undeniably substantial results. The Taliban, whose sanctuary was a center of gravity for al Qaeda, has been removed from power. Al Qaeda's forces are routed, with many killed, captured or dispersed. The network is probably far from dead, but certainly wounded. The United States has won more political and diplomatic support than some forecasts supposed. Pakistan's government has reversed its policies entirely, to American benefit, without toppling (so far). All that may not be victory but it's more than a step or two in that direction.
New York, N.Y.:
Glad you mentioned the hijackings in the 1970s -- I was a kid but remeber that too, and thought of it immediately after Sept. 11. Why do you think hijackings as a tactic died down? Isn't it possible that the people who plan and carry these out are just lying in wait, biding their time until they're ready to rear up again? Keeping in mind that we haven't heard much from Iran in the past 20 years or so, but now they have weapons and nuclear capabilities bought from Russia.
Barton Gellman: Hijacking became a lot harder, despite 9/11, with weapons screenings and other security measures. And the radical left (remember Red Brigades?) lost its political momentum -- it thought for a time it could foment revolution. The Red Army faction actually disbanded in a press release.
I have no doubt that those who plan these operations, after securing their survival, are or will be planning new ones. They have less to work with than they did, but terrorism is cheap and doesn't require many operators.
Iran is not thought to have nuclear warheads, nor intercontinental missiles, but it's working on both. I don't consider that primarily as a terrorism risk. It's another kind of bad things for U.S. interests.
Mt. Rainier, Md.:
I am concerned that President Bush's "war on terrorism" has had two negative effects. We have allied ourselves with states that practice state-run terrorism (Russia, China, et al), and so are forced to overlook their practices. And second, we have enabled autocratic regimes to define terrorism as any movement that opposes tyranny. Mugabe is a case in point; suddenly he is "fighting terrorism" by unleashing violence on the country at large. This is going to be a major black eye for us if we do not separate ourselves from this.
Barton Gellman: I think there's a value in distinguishing terrorism from other gross uses of state violence. There's no doubt Bush has compromised U.S. efforts against the latter in Russia, China and elsewhere, nor that governments largely irrelevant to U.S. interests (Zimbabwe among them) have a new justification for old, grotesque practices. They've used defense of democracy too. There are tradeoffs in this world. Bush has made them. You can decide for yourself if you approve.
Charlotte, N.C.:
Is it your sense that the Clinton administration really did drop the ball here? Or was it a systemic thing?
Barton Gellman: The Clinton administration recognized the threat and did more than any predecessor to address it. Clinton also set limits, and gave greater priorities elsewhere, in ways that led to failure of his objectives. Government always reacts poorly to hypothetical future threats, since it's putting out fires every day that already are burning. Until Sept. 11, for 20 years, terrorism killed fewer people than bathtub drownings and restaurant chokings. The relevant people knew it might be catastrophically worse, but might be is a tough one for governments.
Wheaton, Md.:
When I visited Israel in the late 1980s, I heard from Jewish peace activists that the Israeli intelligence/security apparatus, including Mossad, had actually helped create and fund the militant HAMAS group in the occupied territories. I have never seen this this story pursued in the Western press. Do you have any knowldege of its validity?
Barton Gellman: I was correspondent in Israel. It has often been reported that Israel chose not to combat Hamas aggressively in the early days, by way of weakening Arafat and dividing Israel's enemies. I have not seen evidence that Israel "helped create and fund" Hamas. Hamas grew out of the pan Arab Moslem Brotherhood, and didn't need -- and would have been discredited entirely by -- help from the Mossad.
Alexandria, Va.:
Was it a crime prior to Sept. 11 for John Walker Lindh to join al Qaeda?
Barton Gellman: That's an intriguing legal question. Usually that kind of crime requires mens rea, guilty knowledge. So it might depend on what he thought he was joining, and for what purpose. That may yet be part of his defense.
Irrelevant countries...:
would look like Afghanistan perhaps? Maybe we should examine the idea of irrelevant, against the very real possibility that these remote and lawless places fomenting poverty and anger will also breed more terrorists. Zimbabwe may be irrelevant to our interest in oil, but if it brings all of southern Africa into turmoil I think we will very much regret the lack of foresight. Zim, of course, as just an example.
Barton Gellman: There aren't many Moslems in Zimbabwe, unless I'm mistaken, and for other reasons it is unlikely to become a new al Qaeda haven. Turmoil in Africa is something U.S. foreign policy has hoped to avoid, but it has not been a high priority for any U.S. government. Some say it ought to be and that's a good subject for debate.
Geneva, N.Y.:
Do you think partisan politics limited the effectiveness and options available to the previous administration in its attempts to deal with the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
Barton Gellman: There was next to no political pressure, from friends or enemies of Clinton, to do more on terrorism. Absolutely no one, for instance, called for retaliation against Iran when Reno announced Iranian involvement in Khobar. When Clinton struck at Sudan and Afghan targets in August 1998, he got a lot more criticism for action than inaction. So I guess I'd say in general that counterterrorism lacked any of the usual constituencies -- grass roots, Congressional, diplomatic or bureaucratic -- that drive issues to the attention of the top.
College Park, Md.:
How can the Bush administration reconcile the war on terrorism with the recent appointment of Otto Reich, who was closely involved with an anti-Castro group that blew up a Cuban airliner after takeoff in the 1970s?
Is this a case of one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter?
Barton Gellman: I don't know anyting about Otto Reich, I'm afraid. There is a very small grain of truth to the terrorist/freedom fighter aphorism, since people tend to define the terms in broad ways that benefit their own causes. But the core meaning of terrorism, in its narrow sense, has a pretty strong consensus.
Wilbraham, Mass.:
Good afternoon, Mr. Gellman.
I have heard reports that there were transfers of funds from our government to Pakistan's ISI and from them to Mr. Atta. Any truth to that? Where did the Bush administration expect to get support for their war against the al Qaeda? Is it possible they were waiting for "an incident"?
Barton Gellman: I'm not expert here, but I believe the series of Congressionally mandated sanctions forbade assistance to Pakistan's military, including the intelligence directorate. There had been many contacts over the years with Washington, but fewer since Musharraf's coup and Pakistan's nuclear tests. Any hypothesis that Washington funded al Qaeda indirectly, with knowledge of that, is one of those extraordinary claims for which I'd want good concrete proof.
I don't think Bush knew what he wanted to do and merely awaited an incident to spring into action, as some say FDR did in WW2. I think he -- in fact, a committee of his subordinates -- was still deciding what to do.
Bethesda, Md.:
When Clinton struck Sudan and Afghan targets, people accused him of trying to draw attention away from the impeachment mess. Do you think anyone will criticize Bush in the same way, accusing him of drawing attention away from Enron? Is this kind of thing every president has to balance, no matter what's going on?
Barton Gellman: So far no one has made that accusation against Bush, for the obvious reason that Sept. 11 trumps nearly every other priority for nearly every important constituency.
Boston, Mass.:
You're right -- government isn't all that nimble in dealing with hypotheticals. It's not designed for it. Therefore, are we looking at a real effort to fund and promote a CIA of old -- covert ops, human intelligence and fast-moving missions that don't look so great in congressional testimony but might be necessary?
Barton Gellman: That's what Bush is trying to do now. Then again, so did Casey under Reagan, with decidedly mixed results. Whether it will work is not a matter for confident prediction.
Washington, D.C.:
Of course hindsight is 20/20, and there's no question in my mind that terrorism and dealing with it should have been a significant campaign issue in 2000 -- as a part of a foreign policy stance. Yet the press and the people didn't exactly come out swinging with a lot of questions about anti-terrorism policy. Do you think things will be different in 2004? Has Sept. 11 changed our view so it's no longer quite so inward looking?
Barton Gellman: I looked carefully and found no question (!) asked of either candidate about terrorism, except the day after the USS Cole bombing. Bush said then that "there have to be consequences" once Washington figures out who did it. If a new election came today, terrorism would surely be an issue. 2004 is a long way away in the calendar of American political discourse.
Alexandria, Va.:
You said: "There aren't many Moslems in Zimbabwe, unless I'm mistaken, and for other reasons it is unlikely to become a new al Qaeda haven."
Aren't Islamic terrorists active in neighboring South Africa, however? I remember a bombing of a Planet Hollywood restaurant in South Africa a few years ago and the subsequent arrest of some jihadists for it.
Does al Qaeda need a large Muslim community to hide in? If there were only a few thousand Muslims in Zimbabwe wouldn't that be a large enough number to mask the presence of dozens of al Qaeda?
Barton Gellman: Planet Hollywood was not linked to al Qaeda. I suppose the network could try to hide anywhere, but a recruiting base of coreligionists (and I want to emphasize that only a small number of jihad-minded people need be among them) is nearly essential.
Rockville, Md.:
Do you think that the Taliban terrorists were encouraged by the turning of a blind eye toward Palestinian terrorism by the U.S. government, the continued support of Arafat as a appropriate negotiating partner, and the constant criticism of Israel by the State Department for continuing the cycle of violence?
Barton Gellman: That's one point of view on U.S. policy toward Palestinian terrorism. With respect I have to say I think it grossly simplifies policy under Clinton and Bush.
Regardless of your view on that, I don't see evidence that it made any impact on al Qaeda. Bin Laden neither seeks nor requires justification outside his own radical Islamic constituency. To the extent he uses the activities of others as rationalization, it is American and Israeli terrorism, by his definition, that he cites.
Alexandria, Va.:
Your answer on the alleged Bush/Unocal strategy was highly informed, thorough and convincing. Are you aware of any significant role played by Mrs. Clinton and/or Madeleine Albright in the Clinton-era turnaround of U.S. policy vis-a-vis the Taliban? I have seen reports that representatives of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) -- Afghan women campaigning for human rights at home -- visited the U.S. around 1996 and gained audiences with Albright and Hillary Clinton, who then became forceful advocates within the administration for withdrawal of U.S. suport for the Taliban. Any truth to this story?
Barton Gellman: That's mainly right. The strongest political pressure on the U.S. government regarding Taliban (this is post-1997, not 1996) was from critics of the regime's treatment of women and girls. Albright traveled to a refugee camp, spoke to Afghan women, and declared their treatment "despicable." Hillary Clinton made it one of her strongest public causes. I wouldn't call the result withdrawal of support for Taliban -- support is too strong a word for what came before -- but it became a driving reason for opposition to the regime.
Reston, Va.:
If the government covers up evidence in order to avoid blame for failing to stop the Sept. 11 attacks, does that mean perfectly logical scenarios based on widely accepted facts will never be publicly investigated or reported by the media? How could bin Laden have escaped us? Where is the verifiable evidence against bin Laden to begin with?
Barton Gellman: I'd say any widely accepted facts or even good hypothesis are and will be investigated -- by news organizations and Congress both, each of which has its strengths. (Congress has subpoena power, which comes in handy.) I don't put government above a coverup, but don't have a strong candidate here. Anyone who has should get in touch.
Brunswick, Maine:
There's an article by Seymour Hersh in the current edition of the New Yorker that describes an airlift of, ostensibly, Pakistani supporters of the Taliban out of Kunduz last November. Hersh's sources say that an unknown number of Taliban and al Qaeda supporters were able to escape Afghanistan via this airlift. Two questions: do you agree with the claims in the Hersh article that this airlift occurred, with some Taliban and al Qaeda supporters escaping; and, what is the liklihood that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden escaped via this route?
Barton Gellman: I found the Hersh article intriguing, but I have no independent information on it.
Boston, Mass.:
Barton,
There was a story picked up by CNN a couple of weeks ago that claimed the Bush administration obstructed the hunt for bin Laden earlier this year. Do you have any information on that story?
Barton Gellman: This referred to the French book, which I discussed earlier. I'm not impressed.
Wilbraham, Mass.:
Mr. Gellman,
The Washington Post has run two stories saying that the Saudis have made noises about their wanting the U.S. to get its military out of Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration has denied any knowledge of such a request. It seems to me that this is an ideal for us to get out, (from strength rather than weakness). Gen Horner tried very hard to get us out right after the Gulf War ended. It would seem that we must have other strategic options if such a brillant military mind makes such a recommendation. It would turn the hostility of the militant Islamic groups against the Saudi regime proper and away from the U.S.
The Bush administration wants to stay, it seems against even the desires of the Saudis. What are the forces, economic, political, etc. that want us to stay and why? What will it cost to stay, when the Saudis want us out? washingtonpost.com:
Stories:
Saudis May Seek U.S. Exit (Post, Jan. 18, 2002)
Clinton: U.S. Still Needs Troops in Saudi Arabia (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 20, 2002)
Graphic: U.S. Presence in Saudi Arabia
Barton Gellman: I never heard that Horner sought to depart, and doubt it. (For those who don't recall, he was air commander in the Gulf War.) The Saudi air bases are central to U.S. strategy to (1) contain Iraq and (2) prevent any hostile power from gaining control of the world's largest proven oil reserves. It would not be easy to give them up.
Gaithersberg, Md.:
In the past few years before Sept. 11, there were umpteem instances when the Afghan/Pakistan region showed the training camps for terrorists and open threats to U.S., Israel and India. Do you believe that the sophisticated efforts of terrorists is because of the Pakistan, and more so because of the dreaded ISI? Why was nothing done against Pakistan despite all this?
Barton Gellman: Pakistan sought a friendly, secure western border to free resources for the conflict with India to its east. The ISI contained many overt sympathizers for Taliban, and quieter supporters of al Qaeda. Clinton asked for changes, but two things constrained him. First, with all the sanctions in place, there was not much left to press Pakistan with save for blocking IMF loans, which would have collapsed the government. Clinton advisers, on balance, thought that a very bad idea. Second, competing priorities often came first with Pakistan: avoiding an Indo-Pakistani war, perhaps with nuclear weapons; stopping spread of Pakistan's nuclear technology; and restoring democracy after the coup.
Silver Spring, Md.:
The Bush administration appears to be taking a victory lap already. Isn't it a bit early to do so?
Barton Gellman: Yes, it's early. Political leaders tend to like talking about their successes, and putting them in the best light, so I don't suppose that surprises anyone.
Boston, Mass.:
A little talked about fact is that prior to Sept. 11, President Bush was planning to make large cuts in the budget for the Justice Department. This forced the FBI to put an extended hiring freeze in place. This prevented the hiring of several hundred new FBI special agents last year. How detrimental was this to U.S. national security?
Barton Gellman: I don't know much about the FBI budget in that period, since I concentrated mainly on national security instruments. Overall, Bush proposed to spend slightly more than Clinton on counterterrorism.
Alexandria, Va.:
How concerned was the administration prior to Sept. 11 and now that certain American Muslim organizations could be fronts for al Qaeda sympathizers?
I ask because the State Department has invited a representative of the Muslim Public Affairs Council named Salam Al-Marayati to speak at a State Department forum next Wednesday on the subject of Muslim moderates. This supposedly moderate individual stated on a Los Angeles radio show in the hours after the Sept. 11 that:
"If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list..."
Barton Gellman: As lots of reporters and commentators noted, that kind of political argument is fairly common in the hearts and rhetoric of Moslems around the world. It doesn't, I think, represent sufficient evidence that the person expressing it represents an al Qaeda front.
Alexandria, Va.:
Al Qaeda was a serious threat to U.S. security in 1998 as it also is today.
Do you feel that Republicans who ridiculed and opposed President Clinton's bombing of al Qaeda targets in 1998 showed poor judgment?
Barton Gellman: My job isn't the blame game. I laid out what happened in and out of government as concretely as I think it can be done, and I'll leave the political judgments to others. It's a legitimate subject of debate.
Washington, D.C.:
This war on terrorism doesn't exactly seem to be a war on terrorism -- currently it's an action against Afghanistan and a particular religious sect. And we've enjoined a lot of countries who are pretty shady to our side and our fight. How does this administration -- or any administration -- really know who to trust? And if one of our "allies" turns tide or stops being one of our allies, what do we do?
Barton Gellman: Trust is a tough one in this shadowy conflict. Intelligence agencies (and those of us who try to get a window into what they're doing) have a "show me" attitude. Reagan once said trust but verify. I'd put my emphasis on the second half.
Alexandria, Va.:
What do you think will determine whether military tribunals, criminal courts or an international court will be used to try suspected terrorists for the Sept. 11 attacks?
Barton Gellman: Mainly, the balance of forces between (1) the wishes of the government for unrestricted freedom of action and for protection of confidential intelligence and (2) what the political and diplomatic market will bear. So far (Moussawi, Walker) the score is a shutout victory for criminal courts.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Entertainment
Guide: Got Plans? at 1 p.m. EST
Real
Estate Live at 1:30 p.m. EST
Brookings
Institution: Southeast Asia at 2 p.m. EST
Michael
Leahy on Michael Jordan at 2 p.m. EST
Dirda
on Books at 2 p.m. EST
Amnesty
International: Detainee Rights at 3 p.m. EST
Live Online Special Coverage: America
At War
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
