If only everything was as easy as chasing a lost Bubba from the skies. Bush gave the members of Congress a tutorial on the difficulties of dealing with Osama bin Laden’s deadly network, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the wider terrorist world. He talked about the need for patience–and precision. People needed to understand, he said, that the effort would be complex, time-consuming. The horror of Black Tuesday called for a “proportional response,” chimed in one pol. Bush corrected him. “An effective response,” he said.
It turns out that in George Bush’s world, “effective” does not necessarily mean only military–at least not with traditional methods, and not to the extent the world might have expected given the president’s fitfully swaggering rhetoric. By accident or design, Bush has found the best use for America’s overwhelming military might. By hinting at the use of apocalyptic force, you raise the prospect of global political upheaval. But that very fear may be the best way of scaring the world into joining us to do what’s right by other means–diplomatic, financial and legal.
It’s a new doctrine for a new age–and one that only a Republican with strong conservative ties could credibly attempt. Message: wouldn’t we all rather keep Rambo in the basement? With dizzying speed, Bush has been transformed. He used to be a missile-loving neoisolationist with little knowledge of the world at large; now he’s a relentless internationalist who–for the moment–prefers to use nonmilitary means, including humanitarian aid, to destabilize or destroy a hostile regime. He might even sanction the kind of “nation-building” he has long derided, and in the worst imaginable place: post-Taliban Afghanistan.
“Effective” is not a fiery word, like “war,” or a lofty concept, like freedom. But for a president who sees himself as a CEO, “effective” is the watchword. When Bush gave his stirring address to Congress, the goals he set were clear: to eradicate terrorism and allow life to return to something approaching normal. But now, in every sphere–from military strategy to consumer economics, from homeland defense to congressional relations–Bush is facing the daunting realities of turning those pledges into action.
Grief counselors say the third week after a tragedy is the turning point–the time when emotions begin to fade and reality sets in. Last week was it. Bush finished it with strong support. In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, his overall job-approval rating holds steady at a lofty 86 percent, as does his score (88 percent) for handling the crisis so far. More important, perhaps, Americans increasingly accept his plea for patience as he plots his moves in “the first war of the 21st century.” Two weeks ago, 59 percent agreed the United States should “take as long as necessary to plan something that will work.” Last week 63 percent thought so.
The risk for Bush is obvious and grave. He has to deliver results while the country’s patience lasts; outwit the terrorists who, Bush himself has warned, are planning new attacks. He has the difficult task of selling inaction, says a top adviser. But, for now, most of the GOP’s conservatives don’t dare stamp their feet, and Bush is assiduously cultivating Democrats, cutting deals on spending and taxes that make his right flank nervous. “Our motto is ‘Hug a Democrat’,” a Republican operative says.
Within hours of Black Tuesday, Bush had redeployed large numbers of ships, planes and armed forces toward the Persian Gulf. And in his riveting speech to Congress, he exuded the aura–if not the specific promise–of a fiery military response. In fact, the Bush team had concluded by then that traditional firepower might play an even smaller role than expected–and that, in the meantime, they should use the buildup to add urgency to diplomatic, financial and psy-war measures aimed at bin Laden and the Taliban. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, hiding in plain sight, spelled out the strategy in a series of rambling but revealing briefings.
Why home in on nonmilitary measures? There are a number of reasons: a hard look at the elevation maps and bloody history of Afghanistan. A growing feel for the frailty of the Taliban’s political grip on the country. The success of the administration’s careful efforts to isolate the bad guys diplomatically–which could succeed only if the United States promised to lower its military sights. The realization that support and “intel” could be purchased–cheaply–from the poor, warring Afghan tribes that have done brisk business with passing infidels for centuries.
Key congressional leaders last week were secretly told, as required by law, that Special Forces reconnaissance teams–British at first, followed by Americans–had slipped into a Taliban-controlled portion of Afghanistan, NEWSWEEK learned. The Brits were activated initially, sources told NEWSWEEK, because of their long experience there–and so that the United States could keep its distance while a Pakistani delegation made one last diplomatic effort to win a peaceful handover of bin Laden. (Taliban leaders defiantly rejected it.) “There is a certain level of bloodlust,” Bush admitted to King Abdullah II of Jordan, “but we won’t let it drive our reaction.” Even so, to satisfy the desire for “explosions,” NEWSWEEK has learned, the president was considering airstrikes on Afghanistan’s opium warehouses.
But Bush’s first strike, in fact, was with a pen, not a missile, signing an order freezing the assets of suspected terrorists. He found new virtue in the United Nations, where the United States won a unanimous resolution making willful support of terrorism a state-sponsored crime. The president harvested important backing from the United Arab Emirates, which cut ties with the Taliban; the Saudis, who publicly agreed to allow use of their military bases, and the king of Jordan. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell privately briefed members of Congress on the evolving strategy, including the possible use of humanitarian aid to peel away support from the Taliban, and leave bin Laden exposed. Indeed, NEWSWEEK has learned, the first use of Air Force planes may well be to drop food, not bombs, on the beleaguered people of Afghanistan. They should appreciate the help. The alternative, everyone has to hope, will prove unnecessary.
