Secretary of State Colin Powell pressed foreign leaders to join the United States in a struggle against terrorism, and the administration moved to make the NATO alliance a partner in any military action the U.S. takes.
But facing a shadowy and scattered enemy with little more than tenuous links to any foreign government, it was unclear just how, where or when the U.S. might strike. Some voices warned against the U.S. lashing out blindly, only to kill more innocents.
President Bush, while reiterating his pledge to strike back, cautioned Wednesday that reprisals could take time.
Assurances from Bush
“We will be patient,” Bush said before he met with his Cabinet.
“This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it, we will win.”
Hours later, he toured the smoking ruins of the west wall of the Pentagon for his first look at the devastation.
“Coming here makes me sad, on the one hand; it also makes me angry,” Bush said.
Even before the U.S. investigators have identified a culprit and a country or countries that supported the terrorists, Bush’s anger already was being translated into action. Lawmakers made clear they stand ready to go along.
Capitol Hill was rife Wednesday with talk of “a state of war.”
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) suggested Congress consider a declaration of war on Afghanistan for that country’s alleged role as a sponsor of the terrorist network suspected of involvement in Tuesday’s attacks.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) described the national mood as one of “controlled fury” and delivered a message for those behind the attack: “We are coming after you. God may have mercy on you, but we won’t.”
`War for civilization’
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, called it “imperative that we understand that we are in a war” and described the upcoming conflict as a “war for civilization itself,” pitting killers against the world’s bulwark of democracy.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll after the attacks found 84 percent of Americans support military retaliation against countries that harbor terrorists.
For the short term, the only concrete military actions that were visible Wednesday involved U.S. self-defense, not retaliation. U.S. warships and fighter planes patrolled the East and West Coasts against the possibility of any further attacks.
While Bush spoke out about attacks on countries that harbor terrorists, the uncomfortable news was emerging that the U.S. may have unwittingly provided safe harbor for some of the men suspected of carrying out the hijackings.
Democrats showed solidarity with Bush’s determination to retaliate against the perpetrators of the attack.
“Our fury at those who attack innocents is matched by our united determination . . . to relentlessly pursue terrorists and those who would shelter or harbor them,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
But there were voices of caution. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said Bush should be careful not “to raise expectations” of what retaliation might accomplish. If the U.S. makes threats, Kerry said, “you really have to be prepared to go the distance.”
Stephen Zunes, who heads the peace and justice studies program at the University of San Francisco, said that “military responses usually result only in a spiral of violent retaliation.”
That was a point made Wednesday by Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, long suspected of harboring exiled Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden, emerging as the prime suspect for masterminding Tuesday’s attacks. A Taliban spokesman told the Reuters news service that if U.S. strikes kill innocent victims, the result could be more “suicide incidents.”
Following the model of his father in the Persian Gulf war, Bush set about building a coalition to wage war against terrorism. In an unprecedented move, the administration persuaded NATO allies in Brussels to invoke a treaty provision that treats an attack on one alliance member as an attack on all.
Robert Hunter, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now an analyst with Rand, said the “Article 5” provision has never before been invoked for a simple reason: “Nobody’s ever been attacked before.”
More Top Picks Best Infrared Saunas For Small Rooms
Senior administration officials refused to discuss any specific action, military or otherwise, being contemplated. But they did little to conceal the idea that military retaliation is an option.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the administration will avoid tough talk, opting for tough action. The nation should be prepared for a protracted struggle, not a quick strike, he said.
“I’m inclined to think that, if you’re going to cock it, you throw it, and you don’t talk about it a lot,” Rumsfeld said, responding to a question about possible U.S. military action. “Anyone who thinks it’s easy is wrong. I think that it will require a sustained and broadly based effort.”
The NATO move makes clear that the U.S. is laying the groundwork for the use of force, most likely air power because the point of the strikes would be punishment, not a full-blown land war.
Laying foundation
Powell said the point of the NATO action is to prepare a foundation for the alliance members to support, if not participate in, retaliatory U.S. action. If, for example, the U.S. were to launch warplanes from bases in Europe, Washington would need permission from each of the European countries over which those planes intend to fly.
“It doesn’t mean that they necessarily will participate in the attack, but it makes it easier to obtain support in the way of overflight rights and things of that nature,” Powell said.
“Once again, we’re building a strong coalition to go after these perpetrators, but more broadly, to go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world.”
A denial from Taliban
The U.S. has long accused Afghanistan of providing sanctuary for bin Laden and his associates. Officials of the Taliban once again denied any involvement Wednesday. In the capital of Kabul, diplomats and aid workers left the country, fearing impending strikes and possible retribution against Westerners.
The State Department also upped the pressure on neighboring Pakistan to cooperate in the hunt for lead elements of bin Laden’s organization.
If given a go-ahead from the Bush administration, Congress may go beyond diplomatic pressure on state sponsors of terrorist organizations.
“While the Congress should never act precipitously, I do suggest that consideration be given to a declaration of war against the political entity which harbors and has given aid and assistance to bin Laden’s terrorist organization,” Specter said.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that, confronted by a “nameless, faceless” enemy, it may be difficult to elevate the U.S. response to a formal declaration. But he did not rule it out.