Retaliation by U.S. Swift but Limited

WASHINGTON —  After almost two decades of U.S. frustration over the growing toll from international terrorism, the bold attacks Thursday on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan marked a major departure from past U.S. strategy.

In the past, U.S. retaliation for terrorist attacks often came years after the fact, if at all. American officials usually focused their efforts on trying to bring terror suspects to trial in the United States.

But this time, only 13 days after the twin embassy bombings in East Africa, the United States had unusual opportunities to act. “The stars were all in alignment,” said one U.S. counter-terrorism official. “There was no question who the threat came from or the fairly limited difficulties of a U.S. response.”

At the same time, the limited nature of the U.S. strikes means that they may have a limited impact, U.S. experts warned. Now that the Clinton administration has opted to use force, it may be compelled to use it again--and again.

“A couple hundred thousand tons of stuff have been dropped on these people in Afghanistan over the past 10 years. I can’t imagine how much damage this will do or how much it will deter them,” said Milton Bearden, who ran the covert U.S. operation in Afghanistan for six years in the late 1980s.

“The only way that the Soviets ever damaged infrastructure in that area in eastern Afghanistan was through very costly movements of troops going in,” he said.

In the past, circumstances have worked against American retaliation. The United States still has not acted against the perpetrators of the 1983 and 1984 attacks in Lebanon against the U.S. Embassy and Marine peacekeepers. France, whose peacekeepers in Lebanon also were targeted in 1983, opted to strike at Shiite militants in the Bekaa Valley. The United States, however, felt that Washington did not have sufficient evidence or diplomatic backing to attack.

But unlike a host of murkier and more complicated terrorist cases that arose after militant Islamic groups began targeting U.S. interests about two decades ago, the U.S. concluded that this month’s East Africa bombings could be quickly traced to a source--millionaire Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, operating out of Afghanistan. There were no ambiguities in the case, and the evidence did not depend on a follower or two or three arrested in Pakistan, officials said.

“Rarely do numerous sources converge so uniformly and persuasively,” said National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger at a White House briefing Thursday.

The case against Bin Laden began building months before the Aug. 7 terrorist attacks in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 260 people. In late spring, the United States began presenting evidence against Bin Laden and his network to a New York grand jury in connection with a host of other activities--including allegations of a plot to blow up U.S. passenger planes in Asia and funding extremists who worked with World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.

The intelligence community also sent up red flags in February when Bin Laden formed a new umbrella movement and expanded his mandate to cover not just military targets in the Middle East but also civilian targets anywhere in the world.

An intensive intelligence focus on the Saudi dissident’s group was aided by a breakthrough in getting more than one member of Bin Laden’s movement to provide inside information on how the group operates and evidence of a role in past attacks.

The conclusive evidence virtually dictated the course of action. The discussion centered only on how extensive the military action should be. The final decision was unanimous.

The environment also was conducive to a military strike: Afghanistan and Sudan, the host states for Bin Laden’s organization, have themselves been in chaos from their own wars. Neither nation has much of economic importance, such as oil, or political importance to make their reactions worth fearing.

The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, has been operated out of Kenya for some time, while the embassy in Kabul, the Afghan capital, was long ago vacated by U.S. envoys.

Politically, a strike is less controversial now than it would have been a decade ago. The Islamic world in the 1990s has moved on from the days of violence and angry rhetoric in the 1980s. Even the militant Hezbollah movement in Lebanon has run candidates for parliament, while Iran’s president is calling for detente with the U.S.

Whatever they say publicly, a host of governments in Muslim countries will be less than incensed that the U.S. has taken action against an amorphous force whose members potentially threaten them all.

President Clinton went to great trouble to play to past sensitivities Thursday by differentiating between Islam and terrorism.

“I want you to understand, I want the world to understand, that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world, including the United States,” Clinton said in his address to the nation.

But will the attacks work? Or will they stir up a hornet’s nest?

“It was a useful first step. A sign of strength right now is important for the United States,” said Robert Oakley, former ambassador to Pakistan and head of the State Department’s counter-terrorism office. “It’s about time we stood up.”

But it also may further fuel fiery passions--and a new thirst for revenge.

After 1986 U.S. airstrikes against Libya following a terrorist attack in West Berlin that killed a U.S. serviceman, strongman Moammar Kadafi was silenced--until the 1989 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland that U.S. officials blame on Libyans.

“Bin Laden can easily rebuild his infrastructure as it’s so loose and so widespread and decentralized,” said Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst. “For a hydra-headed movement like his, this is only a temporary setback.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Arab Afghan Militants

Some of the world’s most dangerous militants are foreign Muslims in Afghanistan, a small cluster of up to 25,000 Arabs and others who left home to fight in that country. The most prominent is wealthy Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden. Here’s a look at Bin Laden and other leading Arab militants there:

****

Bin Laden’s Influence

Since 1979, when Osama bin Laden became involved in the jihad, or holy war, in Afghanistan, he has used his wealth to advance terrorist interests and has been linked to a number of terrorist acts:

1992: Bin Laden followers are linked to two hotel bomb attacks aimed at U.S. troops deployed in Yemen for Somalia mission.

1995: Two American soldiers and three U.S. civilians are killed in bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; convicted bombers claim they were influenced by Bin Laden’s thinking.

1996: Bin Laden declares “war” against U.S., lauds terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. service personnel.

1998: Bin Laden linked to bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

****

Osama bin Laden

Age: Believed to be in his late 40s.

Residence: Rustic mountain compound in Afghanistan, equipped with computers and satellite telephones.

Family: One of 52 children of Saudi construction magnate Mohammed bin Laden.

Fortune: Estimated at $250 million.

Terrorism connection: Financial sponsor, mostly through banks and construction, of Islamic militant activity.

****

Other Prominent Arab Afghans Militants:

Ayman Zawahri: Leader of Egypt’s Jihad group, which assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Considered close to bin Laden since Afghan war. Once believed in Switzerland, but now in Afghanistan. A doctor by training. President Clinton froze his assets in 1995.

Rifai Ahmed Taha: Considered main figure in Egypt’s Islamic Group. Nom de guerre Abu Yasser. Believed in Afghanistan. Served prison time for Sadat’s assassination. Recently distanced himself from bin Laden and Zawahri.

Mustafa Hamza: A leader of Islamic Group. Suspected of a leading role in 1995 assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Location unknown but rumored in Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan. Nom de guerre Abu Hazem. Served time for Sadat’s assassination.

Mohammed Islambouli: Elder brother of Sadat’s assassin, Khaled al-Islambouli. A leader of Islamic Group. Traveled to Afghanistan with help of bin Laden. Traveled between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but now believed in Afghanistan. Clinton also froze his assets in 1995.

Sources: United States Department of State, Associated Press