by Sir Timothy Garden
The first 10 days of diplomatic action following the attacks of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon have been impressive. The US has built an international coalition which can give political, intelligence, logistic and for some perhaps military assistance. For the first time in its 52 years, the NATO alliance invoked Article 5 of its founding treaty. This Article was formulated to ensure that an attack on any single member was assumed to be an attack of all. The drafters assumed that this was written to bring the USA into the defence of Europe, rather than the other way round. While this move is largely symbolic, it has a very real value in rapid consensus building. The US can now count on the support of its 18 fellow NATO members. In return the 18 countries can be comforted that they will be kept in the picture as operations develop.
But it has not just been the traditional friends of America who have joined in with support. Russia and China are being helpful, and that will ease any potential difficulties within the United Nations. Old enemies like Iran have backed the US. The most difficult piece of diplomacy has been with Pakistan, where the military government has to handle many supporters of Osama bin Laden and the Taleban. Nevertheless, Pakistan has agreed to allow overflights of its territory.
It is clear that Colin Powell has been the leading light in the US administration for building these complex alliances. He knows the importance of the work from his Gulf War experience. There are those, particularly in the Defence Department, who are not convinced that consensus building is that important. They argue for the use of overwhelming military force against a wide range of states, which they consider support terrorists. They would argue that the current crisis is an opportunity to complete the war against Iraq. For the moment, these voices are not being listened to by the President.
The Taleban goverment is now more isolated than ever before. An attack on it will not cause widespread difficulty with other governments in the region. The stage is set for a military operation, where the political risks have been reduced by careful but rapid diplomacy. US forces are on the move.
The primary target will be bin Laden's organisation. However, "smoking him out" is not a trivial task. Certainly air power in the form of cruise missiles and precision attack missiles will have a role, but they can only be as a precursor to the use of ground troops. Searching a large and desolate area will require patience and specialist forces. They will need to be protected from the tribesman who know the countryside so well. Air support from neighbouring safe bases will be important. While Uzbekistan and Tajikistan would help, basing in Pakistan would be much more useful. This remains politically difficult.
It seems likely now that there will be a two pronged attack within Afgahanista. One will be designed to punish bin Laden and destroy his organisation. The second will be against the Taleban government. This will be partially punishment for their unwillngness to hand over bin Laden, and partially an operation to give a foothold in Afghanistan for operations against bin Laden. It will become much easier to operate within the country once an airfield has been secured. The longer term problem of how Afghanistan is to be governed will also become an issue.
These military operations are within the capability of US forces, but would not be casualty-free. The US public show every sign of being prepared to accept this. What role would allies have to play? Already basing and overflying rights are being taken up. But in the straight military sense, the US planners would probably prefer to conduct this kind of operation on their own. They will not wish to debate targets in detail with coalition partners as they had to in Kosovo. They will not wish to risk security breaches. They will not wish to operate with the less capabable forces of allies. Yet the UK will be keen to be involved. Our Special Forces could make a real contribution given their experience in the region.
The Bush Administration has done well in the early stages of this crisis. The global alliance that it has built should hold together for an operation in Afghanistan. We have yet to learn what the longer term strategy for this "war on terrorism" might be. If the US operations are to be extended to other terrorist groups and their supporters, it will be much more difficult to hold together a coalition of nations. There will be a feeling that either the US is settling old scores or else taking pre-emptive action. Iraq would qualify on both counts, but we have seen in the past how difficult it has been to keep a common policy among nations of how best to deal with Iraq.
There is one other unknown in looking at the longer term strategy. It is by no means clear where the world economy is heading. The current falls in markets may be a natural short term reaction. On the other hand they could be much more damaging. A real crash might make nations have other priorities than cleaning up the world's hotspots.