• Special Report: America Attacked • Live Online Special Coverage: America Attacked • Reader Reaction • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

America Attacked:
Alternatives to War
With William Hartung
President's Fellow, World Policy Institute
Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001; 11 a.m. EDT

Tuesday, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events, hijacked planes hit and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center and crashed into the Pentagon in what's being described as the single worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil. The Bush administration and law enforcement officials are actively seeking those responsible and have declared war on terrorism.

William Hartung, director of ArmsTrade Research Center and President's Fellow at the World Policy Institute will be online Thursday, Sept. 20 at 11 a.m. EDT, to discuss effective methods of combatting terrorism without going to war.

Hartung is an internationally recognized expert on the issues of the arms trade and the economics of military spending and American foreign policy. He was the director of the Project on the Control of the International Arms Trade at the World Policy Institute, a research associate and project director at New York's Council on Economic Priorities and a policy analyst for New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams. He has appeared as a guest on national television and radio programs including CBS 60 Minutes, NBC Nightly News, the MacNeill/Lehrer Report, CNN and National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation."

Hartung is the author of numerous books and studies, including "And Weapons for All," "Welfare for Weapons Dealers 1998: The Hidden Costs of NATO Expansion (World Policy Institute, 1998)," U.S. Weapons at War (World Policy Institute, 1995) and co-author of "The Changing Dynamics of U.S. Defense Policy and Budgeting in the Post-Cold War Era" (Greenwood Press, 1999).

The transcript follows.

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.

William Hartung: My concern about the approach that has been outlined by the President and his advisors is that they have spoken primarily of military options to deal with terrorism. President Bush has defined it as a war on terrorism and most of the options under discussion are military in nature. The possibility of bombing Afghanistan or other countries suspected of harboring terrorists, arming opposition groups to put pressure on such regimes, lifting restrictions on U.S. intelligence agencies to allow them to engage in political assassinations or to deal with criminal or terrorist elements in order to gain intelligence leads.

I believe this approach is much too narrow given the complexity of the problem. If there is to be a military response it should be carefully crafted. We would want to avoid killing innocent civilians or taking actions that would be more likely to create a political backlash than to damage the terrorist networks that we are seeking to eliminate. I think it is important that we have a thorough national debate on the full range of actions that should be taken: military, diplomatic, economic and in terms of our own domestic security measures.

San Antonio, Tex.: When will airport security/screeners become a professional force? Can identification checks within an airport be supported by federal law, such as a driver's license check at traffic check point? National ID cards? Not needed if every state resident has a identification card required by each state.

William Hartung: Much more can and should be done to improve airport security. Over the past few years, the General Accounting Office has demonstrated through its own investigations that in many U.S. airports, the agency's testers have been able to get through security at most major U.S. airports using false IDs or carrying large heavy packages that could easily have contained explosives or weapons. The GAO (General Accounting Office) has repeatedly pointed out that the people who are employed has screeners at our nation's airports are underpaid and inadequately trained. As part of the effort to beef up airport security and bail out the airlines a Congress should set strict conditions involving increased pay and training for the people who do this essential task of screening luggage and allow individuals to board airliners.

Seattle, Wash.: Why do we wait until after the fact to respond? For example, why isn't anyone paying attention to Indonesia -- the fourth largest country in the world where over 95 percent of the population is Muslim? Although the majority are Sunni Muslim the radicial Shiti sect is gaining control and many of them are now students here in the U.S. (at Seattle Universities) where they regularily discuss overthrowing their own fairly corrupt government (which we backed for ages). After the appearance of their current president on the news today they were livid that a woman is president and on TV and not in traditional garb. How soon until one of their Garuda airline pilots (that we trained at Boeing) utilize the same techniques (there or in Hawaii or Japan) to make a point? Shouldn't we be spending the money on schools in third world countries and focusing our efforts on diplomacy and economic development instead of using millions in an attempt to take them out miliarily and fueling their hatred of us?

William Hartung: Part of the problem in Indonesia is that it was ruled for more than three decades by an undemocratic regime which had come to power with the assistance of our own military and intelligence agencies. Part of the appeal of Islamic fundamentalist groups in a country like Indonesia is that the lack of political participation and economic opportunity makes this ideology more attractive to people who see few other constructive options for themselves. So, in that regard, in the long term it would make sense for the U.S. and its major industrialized Allies to put more effort into supporting democratization and economic development in nations where Islamic fundamentalims has taken root in some degree. Part of this effort should include supporting more moderate Islamic political parties and organizations that could provide an alternative to the extreme interpretations of Islam favored by individuals like Osama bin Laden.

Wollongong, Australia: I would like some discussion on the congruence of the suggestions with U.S. culture. That is, are the means suggested the sort of things that fall within the repertoire of thinking, perceiving and acting that are in keeping with U.S. cultural values and actions?

Thanks

William Hartung: Some of the imagery and language used by President Bush in the early days of this crisis resonate with a particular and powerful current in U.S. culture. His statements about this being "a war between good and evil," references "to wanting bin Laden dead or alive," and repeated references to how we will win this war, have linked directly to a long history of American exceptionalism within which Americans often view our nation as morally superior to other nations of the world and in some instances, "blessed." While reverting to this kind of symbolism in the wake of these horrible attacks may be understandable, it doesn't provide the best basis for developing cooperative relationships with other nations to try to solve the problem of terrorism.

Portland, Ore.: Why can't Bush meet Mohammed Omar, Afganistan's ruler, in a neutral country? Then they could settle the bin Laden issue.

William Hartung: There might be a point at which a special envoy or senior U.S. official might be able to have such a meeting with the Afghan leader Omar, but given the recent terrorist attacks and the failed attempt to attack the White House, it is not wise for the President to be the point of contact.

Caribbean, St.Kitts: What is the media's role in the effectiveness of terroist attacks?

William Hartung: The role of the media in issue of terrorism is double-edged. On the one hand, careful investigation and reporting can help create a better understanding of the nature of the problem and lead to the development of more effective policies to deal with terrorism. On the other hand, modern terrorists count on their own ability to use the media as a way to publicize their grievances and broadcast their power, such as it is. It's important for the print and electronic media to try to give as accurate picture as possible of the terrorist threat without either exaggerating it or downplaying it. This is a very challenging task.

HLB ~ Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Will the impotency of conventional unmanned armament coupled with the previous lack of American resolve to commit troops on the ground in theatres of conflict, result in our re-examining the nuclear issue? Specifically, is there impetus now to develop low-yield tactical nuclear missiles -- 1 kton, 5 kton, 10 kton - to take out just the kind of targets we now foresee: guerillas entrenched in mountain terrain where our loss to gain ratio could be two to one or higher, when ground forces go in? Since thermonuclear devices can be made in almost any size, a small missile could provide the punch within a contained area that we haven't seen with conventional warheads. Thanks much.

William Hartung: Prior to these attacks, there had been discussions within the Bush administration about development of low-yield nuclear weapons or so called "mini-nukes." I would say the problem that I see with this approach is that it if these weapons were every used, it would lower the political and moral threshold against the use of nuclear weapons as instruments of war. In that kind of environment, it would be much harder to pressure existing nuclear arm states or nations seeking nuclear weapons to reduce or eliminate their own arsenols. The negative consequences of low-yield nuclear weapons in terms of possible increase in nuclear proliferation far outweigh any military benefits they might provide for the U.S.

Washington, D.C.: How can some of us let the government and the world know that we may not want to go and use military force? Will they listen? I am very worried about the backlash a military action could cause.

William Hartung: During the immediate aftermath of the attacks, emotions have been running high. Many people's first thoughts have revolved around how to get back at the people and organizations responsible for these horrible acts of violence. But now that the President on the verge of describing in more detail what kind of military response he may authorize, I think it is an important time for people who question the utility of a military strike to make their voices heard. People need to write letters to their elected representatives, their local newspapers, engage in peace vigils and other public activities that will make clear to the President and Congress that there is a significant current of opinion in the country that does not support a rush to war in response to these terrible incidents.

Traverse City, Mich.: If the American people do not see action soon, they will quickly lose interest. The funding will disappear and we will once again be lulled asleep to the terrorism that is mounting all around us. My question is this: How can we combat terrorism when our citizens are mainly filled with rage and we desire retaliation NOW and at all costs?

William Hartung: There's been a lot of commentary since last week's attacks about the fact that we are in a whole new world now. To the extent that that is true, one of the things that will have to change is our short national attention span for dealing with serious political and foreign policy issues. My concern is not so much that there will not be funding available but whether we will put our existing resources to better use. In that respect, one important element will be pressing the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies to alter their priorities rather than just throwing more money at the problem.

Charleston, W.Va.: Obviously, something has to be done in retaliation. You simply cannot conduct trade restrictions, and/or financial, due to the fact who do you restrict, these extreamists are not citizens of any country as are most of them are exiled from their mother counties. My question is how many people must die before the leftist liberals of the United states will agree to any sort of armed confrontation.

William Hartung: Speaking for myself, I am not a pacifist. If we could develop appropriate intelligence and a workable plan to strike at bin Laden and his network without killing innocent civilians I would be supportive of such an effort. However given the difficulty of that undertaking, it is important to use the other tools at our disposal. That would include measures such as tightening up airport security, reviewing measures that would protect computer networks, water supplies and other vulnerable elements of our civilian economy, we also need to push much harder to eliminate bank secrecy and other impediments to ceasing financial assets to networks such as bin Laden's.

Cathlamet, Wash.: If I may be allowed a second comment, I totally agree with you about being careful in Afghanistan. If we bomb Afghanistan and kill innocent civilians who, unlike us, have no choice about their government, we are as bad as the terrorists themselves.

William Hartung: One thing we need to consider as we consider the President's pledge to fight terror and stop violence against civilians is that many of our own government policies over the years has resulted in the death of innocent civilians in support of governments and military groups that engage in terror tactics. For example, bin Laden himself was able to build the foundations of his terror network during the 1980's when he was working as part of the CIA funded Afghan rebel movement that was fighting the Soviet occupation of that country.

Cathlamet, Wash.: Mr. Hartung, I have read some online biographies about Osama Bin Laden and was astounded to hear reports that during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan during the early 1980's, that our own CIA trained and even gave him financial support.

Knowing that some pages on the internet are prone to misinformation, are these reports true?

Thank you.

William Hartung: Unfortunately for many years now, our policies providing arms and training to foreign military forces have suffered from a extremely short term perspective. Frequently weapons that we have supplied for one purpose have come back to haunt us when they end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries. Given what happened to bin Laden, I am particularly skeptical of proposals to arm the current Afghan opposition group, the Northern Alliance.

Washington, D.C.: I read in the paper today that the Pakistani government is looking for the US to re-supply them with arms and spare parts for weapons, in return for allowing the US to set up bases in Pakistan. Isn't there a great danger that these arms will in fact fall into the hands of the very people we want to go after, i.e., the Taliban? Isn't it ironic that it was the US that supplied the arms to the Afghan resistance that was fighting the Russians in the 1980's, and now we are plagued by terrorism from the latest iteration of those same groups (the Taliban)?

William Hartung: There is no question that the Pakistani government will want something in return for any support it may provide to U.S. military actions against Afghanistan. It would be far safer to provide support in the form of diplomatic recognition or economic assistance than to expand and revitalize Pakistan's military. As a nuclear arms nation armed with U.S. supplied F-16 aircrafts that are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, we wouldn't want to take the risk that the current Pakistani government might be overthrown in a backlash by the powerful Islamic fundamentalist opposition groups in that country. The quickest way for Osama bin Laden or someone like him to get access to nuclear weapons would be if they were to destablize or overthrow the Pakistani government. So the Bush administration should think twice before taking steps that might enhance Pakistan's military capability.

Reston, Va. 20190: Given that there are probably more terrorist cells extant in the US, how soon do you forsee another attack? What do you think would make an attractive target?

William Hartung: I'm not sure it is useful to speculate too much about specific targets. However, if we look at the pattern of the attacks sponsored linked in one way or another to the bin Laden network, they seem to be progressing towards more violent actions targetting not only U.S. military personnel but increasingly, civilians. So I would say it seems likely to me that if there is to be another attack, it would probably be carefully planned and timed and would most likely involve some new tactic instead of a repeat that were used against the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

London, UK: Much conventional wisdom says that tomorrows terrorist is today's repressed child living in poverty. Yet Bin Laden came from a wealthy family and as far as we can see his operatives are not poverty stricken either.

It would seem that the driver here is ideology alone. How should our response to Al-Queda differ from that we would give to Hamas or Hezbollah, for example?

William Hartung: While political iniquities and economic injustice can certainly create a climate of support or sympathy for terrorist amongst some constituencies, it has often been the case that the leaders of groups that use violence to try to bring political change come from middle or upper class backgrounds. This is true whether they are perceived as revolutionaries, freedom fighters or terrorists. I still believe that efforts to deal with some of the underline political conflicts that can fuel terrorism can be a value in the long term in limiting the ability of terrorist groups to raise funds and find new recruits. Seeking equitable peace agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians, or resolving the conflict of India and Pakistan over Kashmir will take time. It is unlikely that progress on those fronts will change the ideology or behaviors of bin Laden or his current cohorts.

Rockville, Md.: Is there really any possibility of NO military response? Is the U.S. just trying to intimidate Afghanistan with a show of force? Whats the likelyhood of the Taliban backing down?

William Hartung: I think there is a possibility, a small one, that if threats of military action and related diplomatic efforts were to result in bin Laden being delivered to the U.S. or some international authority to be called to account for these actions, an attack on Afghanistan might be forestalled. There's clearly a split among the Taliban leadership whether and how to cooperate with U.S. demands. But at this point, there is a better chance that they will not hand over bin Laden to the U.S. or a third power. Even if bin Laden were handed over and the attack on Afghanistan were not occur, we have to remember that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have described this as a long term war that might involve many different kinds of military action in a number of different places around the world.

Arlington, Va.: How concerned should we be that Pakistani radicals might stage a coup against the government? It seems to me (from the media reports, at least) that very few support Pakistan's decision to combat terrorism.

William Hartung: There seems to be a real risk of that because the fundamentalist ideology has a strong following not only in the streets of Pakistan but also among a significant number of military and intelligence officers. Many high ranking Pakistani officials feel that they were abandoned by the U.S. in the early 1990's after they had helped the U.S. funnel billion of dollars of arms to the ultimately successful Afghan resistance. There is great resentment among many Pakistanis who feel that the U.S. has exercised a double standard towards their country.

   |       |