• Timothy Hoyt Biography • Georgetown University Security Studies Program • Special Coverage: America At War • Live Online Special Coverage: America At War • Readers Respond • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

America Attacked:
Military Strategy
With Dr. Timothy Hoyt
Research Fellow,
Center for Peace and Security Studies,
Georgetown University
Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2001; Noon EDT

U.S. and British forces began a series of strikes in Afghanistan targeting al Qaeda training centers and the country's ruling Taliban on Sunday, Oct. 7. President Bush described the strikes as a "sustained, comprehensive and relentless" campaign against terrorism.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt, research fellow at the Center for Peace and Security Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Services at Georgetown University, will be online Tuesday, Oct. 9 at Noon EDT, to discuss U.S. military strategy, targets and coalition involvement.

Hoyt has designed and coordinated political-military simulations for universities, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. He has worked for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of State, and as a researcher on defense issues for the Library of Congress. He has written on a variety of subjects, including the diffusion of military technologies and practices, the proliferation of conventional and unconventional weapons, regional security in the Middle East and South Asia, and the evolution of strategy and arms production in the developing world.

A 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.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Good afternoon. The horrific attacks against New York and Washington, DC demonstrate that wars of the 21st century have the potential to be every bit as brutal and vicious as the wars of the 20th. We are now in the opening stages of a long conflict against a new kind of opponent - transnational terrorist groups and the states and other organizations which provide them sanctuary and support. This war is currently being waged over the skies, and on the ground, of Afghanistan, but as the US notified the United Nations last night, it may also be expanded to include other countries and regions.

This is a war that is very different from Kosovo or the Gulf War. We are targeting an elusive terrorist organization with links to at least 30 different states, and at least one regime - the Taliban - which offers it territorial sanctuary for training, organization and operations. We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan - in fact, as we attack the Taliban regime, we are dropping humanitarian relief supplies to the domestic victims of that regime's mismanagement. Although we are using conventional forces to carry out military missions, much of this war will be waged behind the scenes - through diplomacy, economics, intelligence work, and broad international cooperation. There will be no quick and easy victories, but there will be discernible successes.

I've pre-loaded responses to a lot of questions which came in early - it will be easy to tell, I'm afraid, which questions I've had time to think about. This is my first time with Washington Post on-line, so have patience with me. I'll try to type as fast as I can . Thanks!

Houston, Tex.: If ground troops were dispached into Afganistan and judging by the reaction of the people there "they seem a bit hostile to what is going on." So my question is, how are they going to fight the Taliban, terrorists, as well as the general population? This is judging by only what I have seen on TV as far as a hostile Islam public. What kind of strategy or restrictions would be put on our troops?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: HOUSTON

Good question. This conflict will utilize ground forces much more cautiously and judiciously than the Gulf War. Most of the troops we are currently tasking for the region have one of three missions - protecting the airbases and installations the US is using in friendly countries, search and rescue for downed aircrews (if any of our planes are shot down or crash), or special operations. The latter includes both commando style raids, which will be dependent on good intelligence on the ground, and training for the Northern Alliance troops which oppose the Taliban.

Only the last of these missions is likely to require stationing of troops on Afghan soil for extended periods (the commando missions are more likely to be "snatch and grab" style, with lots of options for quick evacuation), and they'll be with relatively friendly forces.

Our current operations are exhibiting great sensitivity for Islamic public opinion, given the fact that we are basically at war. The simultaneous use of airstrikes and humanitarian relief drops are an attempt to assuage concerns that this is a war against Islam, rather than a war against terrorism. Similarly, the U.S. has carefully refrained from launching combat missions out of any neighboring friendly countries to this point - our combat aircraft are staging out of US bases, Diego Garcia, and off of US Navy aircraft carriers. This could change, but for the moment we're trying hard to wage a very limited, discriminate war that won't ignite mass protests in the Muslim world.

Vienna, Va.: Dr. Hoyt: Why all of this talk about a "coalition?" Yes, on paper, NATO has invoked the treaty obligations, but so far, what we have seen in all practicality is basically a U.S./British move. We hear promises from the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Russians, more or less the rest of NATO, Mexico, Egypt, a few other moderate Arab states, the Israelis, and yes, even Peking (Beijing) which up to a few weeks ago was considered our most likely future enemy. Uzbekistan, to its credit, has given us military bases to strike from, and Pakistan, to its credit, has publically opposed the Taliban, but push has come to shove, and as usual, only the Brits have actually followed us into battle. Let's see something other than talk from the rest of NATO, at least... they are just as much the enemies of Bin Laden as we and the Brits are.
The real hot potato here is Pakistan... an unstable country with nuclear weapons in the potential reach of Bin laden and the Taliban.
I hope General Musharraf realizes just how dangerous this could be -- and just how critical it is that the coalition help prevent this.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: VIENNA, VA

Coalition politics will be a very important part of this conflict - at least as important as the actual fighting. At one level, this conflict focuses on destroying Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. At another level, however, it also aims to ensure that similar networks do not spring up in the future. To do that, we have to engage other Muslim regimes and get their support - reluctant or, in some cases, coerced if necessary. We must work with regimes that are not friendly to gain intelligence on the terrorists and to deny them shelter in those states in the future. That's an extraordinarily difficult task.

In terms of military support, the British have already weighed in, launching cruise missile strikes the first night, and they have substantial forces in the region for a military exercise that will probably stay in the area to support us. Germany and France have offered support when necessary, but they lack the kinds of overt capabilities that we are currently using - long range stand-off forces that don't require regional bases. We don't want to use regional bases for military strikes unless necessary - our hosts in the region have asked us not to carry out combat missions because of fears of retaliation or domestic opposition. Should the conflict move to another stage, and we need to use those bases more vigorously, that will require renewed negotiations and may then also increase the direct military support of NATO and other allied countries.

Pakistan is particularly sensitive and vulnerable. On the other hand, this is the product in part of their own choices - Pakistan supported the Taliban, and hosts a number of transnational extremist Islamic groups which it uses to sustain the violence in Kashmir. General Musharraf is vulnerable and in a difficult position, but so far appears to have weathered the crisis. His moves this weekend to purge or isolate politically suspect officers, including the head of Inter-Services Intelligence, suggest that he remains in charge and is willing to make difficult, provocative decisions if necessary to support the coalition - which is definitely in the best interests of Pakistan.

Washington, D.C.: Instead of wringing our hands about how bin Laden's inflamatory videotape is being perceived in the Arab world, why are we taking the offensive in the war of words by releasing our own videotape -- replete with Islamic clerics -- that explains how bin Laden goes against the Koran, kills Muslims himself, and lies to gain power? Bush and Rumsfeld are doing a good job, but wouldn't the Arab world believe a Muslim cleric more?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: WASHINGTON DC

Good point. I am sure that we're considering how best to utilize the support of moderate Islamic clerics from all over the world to give a different perspective on Bin Laden's crimes. The Muslim world probably would believe Muslim clerics more readily than official statements by Western governments. Some Muslim clerics might be concerned that they would be too closely associated with the US government, which is a very sensitive issue in many countries, but it still seems both reasonable and possible to launch a counter-campaign explaining how Bin Laden's actions violate Islamic law.

Alexandria, Va.: Prior to Sept. 11, the U.S. would sometimes criticize other countries for reacting to terrorism in a manner deemed "excessive" and "disproportionate."

Do you think we need an excessive and disproportionate reaction to the attacks of Sept. 11, and the more excessive and disproportionate the better?

After all, Osama bin Laden and Taliban were excessive and disproportionate in their attack on us, so it stands to reason that our retaliation should be on a similar scale, except that it should target guerillas and terrorists.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Alexandria, VA

This is an important observation. There are some who think that excessive and disproportionate responses deter terrorists. Others think they aid terrorist recruiting efforts and provide them with greater public support.

The problem with Al Qaeda is that it has no territorial base. Therefore, if we respond with massive force, we will be retaliating primarily against innocents. Even having identified Afghanistan as a major supporter and base, we are taking great pains to isolate our attacks to the forces and installations that support the Taliban regime and the Al Qaeda terrorist network. This means that our response already is much less disproportionate than it might have been - we could, for instance, have declared all Afghans the enemy and launched Desert Storm-like raids across the country (2000 sorties the first night instead of 40).

We didn't do that because we're not fighting all the Afghani people, nor all the Muslim people. We're fighting a relatively small number of terrorists (a few thousand at most) and a regime that gives them aid and comfort. When and if we can launch significant operations that will cause massive damage to those forces, I'm sure we will. But the problem is identifying and locating them. Since Al Qaeda apparently has links in at least 30 countries, this will take time and a lot of good intelligence and police work (and foreign cooperation). Killing large numbers of innocents, or occupying portions of Muslim states, might be very counterproductive.

In short, because Al Qaeda is transnational and not confined to one territory, it makes disproportionate response much less effective and less of a deterrent. We'll end up harming lots of innocents, giving Bin Laden and his kind new evidence for his propaganda and possibly new recruits and support for his network. When we can find them, we should hit them very, very hard - but those opportunities may be rare and not particularly public.

Alexandria, Va.: Fouad Ajami says that the Al Qaeda have an endless list of demands, at the end of which is an end to Western secularism. Is the attempt by Islamicists in Iran to kill Salman Rushdie evidence that the terrorists seek to end our secular way of life?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Alexandria, VA

From Bin Laden's tape this weekend, we know that two of the most frequently announced demands remain at the top of his list - the destruction of Israel and the removal of the US from the Persian Gulf. Those alone are difficult to work with. But there is abundant evidence that Bin Laden seeks even more - that he views the West as decadent, and Islam as holy and inalienably correct. Again, in his recent tape, he announces that there are only two sides. In Bin Laden's case, I think it is inarguable that he seeks to end our secular way of life.

I would distinguish that, however, from the views of most Muslims, who have lots of concerns about Western culture and religious beliefs (of lack thereof), but who will not resort to mass murder or religious war to resolve those concerns. Bin Laden would like this to become a war between Islam and the West, but it is not. It is war between a relatively small faction of fanatics and the rest of the world, although the commitment of many states is far from whole-hearted.

Orono, Maine: We keep hearing that special forces will likely be used to conduct raids, provide intelligence and hunt down Bin Laden. But, I've also read that Afghanistan is heavily mined.

Do mines pose a significant threat to small unit operations? Do special forces have their own mine clearing units? How might the presence of all those mines alter U.S. strategy?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Orono, Maine

There are areas that are extraordinarily heavily mined as a result of the Soviet Union's occupation, particularly near the Pakistani border. They will pose some obstacle to special operations units, but those units can (and presumably do) carry portable mine detection and disposal equipment. I don't want to sound overly callous, but this is probably a risk that is factored into our operations - I do not think it forces us to alter our strategy in any major way.

Reston, Va.: Have you done any research on how armies that are facing down-sizing in peacetime overthrow the democracies they are built to protect? As a great nation, it would seem we could spend more on research about how to disarm the combatants upon completion of their duties -- a problem that has existed since ancient times.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Reston VA

I've done some research on civil-military relations, but not so much on the impact of down-sizing on military coups. There is absolutely no doubt that trying to disarm and de-militarize countries after long civil conflicts requires more study. In the 1990s, increased attention was paid to two of these problems - the problem of landmines and the problem of light arms proliferation. Afghanistan represents a disaster on both counts. After the war with the Soviet Union, it was flooded with light arms, and land mines were everywhere. The country then was subject to a long civil war between factions, eventually "won" by the Taliban (who, at the time, were believed to be preferable to the alternatives - chaos or the opposition factions).

The US has not been entirely supportive of efforts to deal with either problem - for reasons which range from good to less persuasive. We still rely on landmines to help defend the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea - this is not the kind of use which has led to humanitarian crises in other parts of the world, since the mines are placed to control external aggression and invasion, and not for internal security purposes (a big problem elsewhere that has led to huge numbers of civilian casualties). Also, we have the minefields fairly well mapped, and can remove them when the threat recedes - something that was not done elsewhere in the world. Control of light arms is a more difficult problem, particularly with our own history of domestic resistance to gun control. However, light arms have been used by resistance movements to remove bad governments, and our own American Revolution was accomplished largely through our ability to manufacture or import light arms. This is a terribly complicated question that I wish I had a solution for.

Ultimately, the problem with disarmament is that it works very well when there is a popular government with good intentions. Unfortunately, not all governments are like that (Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, for instance), and therefore there is some reason to "hedge". Also, once peace occurs, not all groups are excited about disarming - the current Northern Ireland peace process is a case in point, as the continuing negotiations over IRA demilitarization are torturous at best.

A long-winded answer to a short and pertinent question, I'm afraid - there's a lot more work to be done in this field.

Tucson, Ariz.: A reported "unsophisticated" group of people spending approximately half a million dollars struck at the heart of America with one day results only exceeded in our Civil War. How? We are the single remaining superpower with awesome weapons and billions a year spent in intelligence gathering. The enemy was well known, and their tactics familiar. Is this a classic case of the military always preparing for the last war? Is our planning so limited that we assume others will only act rationally or our understanding of self-interest governed too narrowly by western standards?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Reston VA

I've done some research on civil-military relations, but not so much on the impact of down-sizing on military coups. There is absolutely no doubt that trying to disarm and de-militarize countries after long civil conflicts requires more study. In the 1990s, increased attention was paid to two of these problems - the problem of landmines and the problem of light arms proliferation. Afghanistan represents a disaster on both counts. After the war with the Soviet Union, it was flooded with light arms, and land mines were everywhere. The country then was subject to a long civil war between factions, eventually "won" by the Taliban (who, at the time, were believed to be preferable to the alternatives - chaos or the opposition factions).

The US has not been entirely supportive of efforts to deal with either problem - for reasons which range from good to less persuasive. We still rely on landmines to help defend the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea - this is not the kind of use which has led to humanitarian crises in other parts of the world, since the mines are placed to control external aggression and invasion, and not for internal security purposes (a big problem elsewhere that has led to huge numbers of civilian casualties). Also, we have the minefields fairly well mapped, and can remove them when the threat recedes - something that was not done elsewhere in the world. Control of light arms is a more difficult problem, particularly with our own history of domestic resistance to gun control. However, light arms have been used by resistance movements to remove bad governments, and our own American Revolution was accomplished largely through our ability to manufacture or import light arms. This is a terribly complicated question that I wish I had a solution for.

Ultimately, the problem with disarmament is that it works very well when there is a popular government with good intentions. Unfortunately, not all governments are like that (Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, for instance), and therefore there is some reason to "hedge". Also, once peace occurs, not all groups are excited about disarming - the current Northern Ireland peace process is a case in point, as the continuing negotiations over IRA demilitarization are torturous at best.

A long-winded answer to a short and pertinent question, I'm afraid - there's a lot more work to be done in this field.

Virginia: What's the difference between your program and the National Security Studies at the same school? Are you more anti-war?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Virginia

Name change. We used to focus most specifically on US defense policy. Now we offer concentrations in US National Security Policy, International Security, and Technology and Security - an effort to broaden our focus and research.

As for more or less anti-war, that's a tough one. I'm a Quaker who teaches military strategy, among other things, because I think it is necessary to understand the world we live in to get to the world we may wish to have. Does that make me pro or anti-war?

I don't think any of us are "pro-war." I think most people are not. Many people support certain wars at certain times. I supported the Gulf War, although many people I worked with (and many relatives) did not. I support this war, but I have concerns about how it should be conducted.

Sorry not to be able to give you a yes or no answer, but it's not a simple question!

Washington, D.C.: I feel a major aspect of this war on terrorism is being fought on the psychological front and bin Laden seems to be winning.

He has framed our (coalition) actions as an attack of Islam and has now linked his plight to the Palestinian situation in the Middle East. His message seems to be connecting with significant numbers of Muslims in the region and around the world. How can we make a case that will demonstrate to Muslims that this is not about attacking Islam but is instead about the destruction of terrorism?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we're trying to do that with humanitarian relief efforts - publicly funding large amounts for Afghanistan, and then dropping supplies in the midst of a war. Some may criticize that as propaganda, but it's also genuine (I think).

The administration's decision to leak their support for a Palestinian state also appears to be timed to affect Muslim opinion. But I don't think you'll see the US withdrawing substantially from its traditional support of Israel - although we may lean on it a bit to get negotiations back under way.

London, U.K.: It is widely acknowledged that the Saudi government and Pakistan's army have played a significant part in propagating the type of militant Islamic ideology that motivated the Sept. 11 attacks. Pakistan's intelligence service, it would seem, has enjoyed direct contacts with the networks that planned and executed the Sept. 11 attacks. With allies like these, what prospects are there for a successful outcome to the U.S. government's Global Offensive Against Terrorism?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Awareness of the inclinations and limitations of our partners is a start. It seems clear that the US leaned very hard on Pakistan at the beginning of this crisis, and General Musharraf's sacking of the head of his intelligence service suggests that at least some cooperation will be forthcoming.

This will be a campaign that requires a lot of cooperation with regimes and individuals even more unsavory (from a US perspective) than Pakistani intelligence (with whom we have had substantial contacts in the past).

There may well be a lack of cooperation from some states, including the ones you name, at various times. On the other hand, cooperating with a very broad range of partners may allow us to get information and intelligence from other sources.

Washington, D.C.: Should we be watching Iraq closer right now?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: That's a huge debate in Washington. I think, to put it mildly, that Saddam would be very unwise to do anything overt at this time - the US is very, very ready to jump on an excuse to attack Iraq.

We do need to continue following up on reports that Iraqi intelligence met with Al Qaeda, and on other leads suggesting that the Iraqis may have been involved in Sept. 11. We KNOW Iraq supports international terrorism, and have put regimes which do that on warning. If Iraq can be proven to be linked to Sept. 11th, I think they will not get a lot of support from the Arab world when the US attacks.

If we can't make that link, my personal opinion is that we should hold off from expanding the war to Iraq at this time. I think it would play into Bin Laden's hands.

Annandale, Va.: It appears that there are limited ground resources currently in use in Afghanistan and that there are no plans for a large-scale ground assault. Is it feasible to achive our strategic security and political goals in this mode? Also, is this a, or is there any, viable mission that lies between a full-scale ground invasion as in Iraq and the much-maligned "nation building" as attempted in the Balkans?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: This is a whole different kind of war. I don't think we should try to occupy Afghanistan, or to conquer it. Those are the kinds of missions that require massive ground forces, and the history of those kinds of operations in Afghanistan are that they are extremely costly.

This is somewhere between a global SWAT mission and a massive, world-wide counterinsurgency campaign. To use some tired old phrases, we have to limit our use of military force in order to win (or at least not lose) hearts and minds in the parts of the world where the terrorists hide. This is the kind of war we can win, but it will require a lot of restraint and a lot of patience.

Washington, D.C.: Until Sept. 11, most Americans had a romantic view of terrorism, and I'm referring to one group in particular: the IRA. Money has been flowing from the U.S. to fund the IRA in recent years, all done legally through fundraisers, etc. My view is now that gusher is going to be cut down to a trickle, since now Americans understand just what terrorism is. After all, the IRA really are no longer the freedom fighters they were of the 1920s and 1960s-70s.

Any thoughts?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I should start by saying I used to live in Belfast, so this is a little close to home. The IRA has been romanticized, and has received a lot of support from the US (again, a flow that has slowed substantially since the mid-1970s).

On the other hand, whatever you think of the IRA, it is relatively more "traditional" in terms of methods, and hasn't hijacked aircraft for mass casualty suicide attacks. It has also entered into (through Sinn Fein) negotiations that appear to be in good faith. That's a very different kind of terrorist group than Al Qaeda.

Fairfax, Va.: Dr. Hoyt, how effective could the Northern Alliance forces be in toppling the Taliban government if strongly supported by U.S./NATO air, artillery and logistics? Do we really need to directly use U.S./NATO ground combat forces?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we need to use very few Western ground forces, except as advisors and perhaps specialists. Too many Western forces entering Afghanistan again becomes a propaganda triumph for Bin Laden. Air cover, however, will help the Northern Alliance a lot, and we can certainly provide training and equipment. There are reports from the NOrthern Alliance that large numbers of Taliban troops and leaders are defecting. I would work with the Northern Alliance closely to exploit these opportunities.

Arlington, Va.: How can the U.S. trust the spies and intelligence people from Pakistan since they have ties to the Taliban? The same questions can be asked of the other nations providing intelligence.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: You can't, at least not totally. A lot of stuff will have to be double-checked, and lots of assurances will have to be run past other intelligence services or sources and methods to see if we're getting the truth.

On the other hand, any help we can get now is information that we probably would have difficulty getting on our own. Our own sources in this part of the world, according to media reports, are pretty limited. We'll be working with some pretty dirty people and organizations to fight Al Qaeda, but they are highly preferable to the alternative.

San Francisco, Calif.: I understand the need for a strong coalition. However, it seems like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the center of the fundamentalist movement. Why are we forcing the Israelis to restrain in suppressing the uprisings? I know this sounds extreme, but I feel that Israel should expel the Palestinians to neighboring countries. Please comment.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: It may seem like an easy solution, but I strongly suspect that if the Palestinians were ejected from Israel, it would escalate this conflict from an operation against terrorism to a full-blown Middle East conventional war, including the possible use of unconventional weapons. that's not in the best interest of Israel or of the United States, to say the least.

I think it's in the interest of everyone in the region (and the US) to reach a stable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. That solution was almost achieved in the last three years, but fell apart at the last moment. I don't know what it will take to get back to that point - a lot of trust has been lost, and a lot of people have been killed. But ultimately, some solution to that problem will be necessary - I'm just not sure what form it will take.

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Dr. Hoyt, What level of participation will ground troops have as we set in for the long haul? And do you feel that the small numbers they are talking about will be enough?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think we'll be looking at small numbers in afghanistan, unless we get involved in peacekeeping or some other kind of activity afterwards. Certainly nothing on the order of the Gulf War (500,000).

If we expand this war to other supporters of terrorism, the need for ground troops may change. If we are trying to occupy and overthrow regimes (as some have said we should do to IRaq), that will require a lot more than 1000 light infantry and other special ops forces.

But for what we're currently trying to do, the ground force requirements are fairly low - mostly, again, force protection and commando types of ops.

Silver Spring, Md.: There have been several comments here about Pakistan's instability and vulnerability here. You state that Gen. Musharraf appears to be in charge by "sacking" certain military elements (and others). We must remember that Musharraf came to power in a coup just a few years ago. What if these so-called "sacked" individuals (or units) decide that they are not going to be sacked? What we could end up with is is a civil war (or another coup) here in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan... and this in a country with nuclear warheads. This is potentially an extremely dangerous situation and I feel we may be be pushing it off too lightly.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I don't think we're taking it lightly at all, and Secretary Powell is going to the region shortly.

Pakistan's nukes, as far as we know, are firmly in the hands of the Army. There have been concerns about the level of support for extremist Islamic views in the Pakistani military, and this apparently is at least one of the reasons that some of the Pakistani generals were sacked or isolated.
The Army has been highly political in the past, but it has (for the most part) followed orders from within the hierarchy.

If these individuals decide they are going to stage a coup, I am fairly certain the US will aid Musharraf. He appears to have strengthened his hand in recent weeks after the dangerous decision to side with the US (the alternative, again, was to side against the US, which was correctly viewed as even more dangerous). His regime has attempted to fix some of the endemic problems in Pakistani policital society and in its economic system - but with mixed success. On the other hand, I believe most US policymakers view Musharraf as dependable, predictable, and preferable to an uncertain alternative.

This is a volatile situation, but so far the level of opposition to Musharraf does not appear to be dangerous. I agree with you completely that this should not be taken lightly, and should be monitored with concern.

Berkshire, U.K.: What if Bin Laden escapes to Kashmir (India) through planned escape routes? Is the army ready for this?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Is our army ready for it? I don't know. But I'm sure we would immediately have some very interesting discussions with the Indian government.

US-Indian relations have gotten much stronger in the past two years. I feel reasonably certain that if Bin Laden were to appear in Kashmir, both the US and India would view him as a mutual enemy, and cooperate to assure his capture or death (to put it bluntly).

Atlanta, Ga.: In the past week or so, the major TV networks have been doing regular interviews with people who have an extraordinary knowledge of our military and our government.
These include recently retired four star generals and highly ranked people from previous administrations. These people have been giving their informed opinions about what actions we might take next, including military movements. Do you think these highly knowledgeable people could be giving our enemies information they can use? Could you see a scenario where our military might actually alter some action because some former general foretold of its possibility on CNN the night before?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I don't think that any "talking head" (I'm just a typing head, myself ) is actually endangering ongoing operations - so unless they for some reason had knowledge of a command strike (for instance) and inadvertently (or deliberately) revealed it, I don't think the prognostications of experts actually endanger any particular mission.

Many of the strategic musins of people in the media are predictable, but also (sometimes) self-contradictory or even preposterous. I pity anyone who is carefully scanning all the media hoping to figure out what we'll be doing tomorrow based on what's being said on TV and the internet. It would truly be nightmarish.

However, it is fair to say that the administration is worried about classified information leaking (there were some notorious examples on Sept. 11 and 12), and is taking serious steps to limit access to information that might endanger operations.

Washington, D.C.: Our situation vis-a-vis the Taliban has been compared to the entrenched Japanese at the end of World War II. Do you think the comparison is accurate? If so, how do you think it will affect our strategy?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think the support for the Taliban is not particularly solid. I do think some of them are quite fanatic in their opposition to the West.

Unless things change significantly, we won't be trying to root out the Taliban from caves and towns. We're more likely to support an alternative regime, drawn from the Northern alliance and other ethnic leaders, perhaps headed symbolically by the King of Afghanistan. We'll probably leave the rooting out of Taliban die-hards to them, unless they should leave Afghanistan and try to take up residence elsewhere.

But that's just a guess. We did continue to find Japanese troops throughout the Pacific for decades after the end of the Second World War, still certain they were at war with the US.

Arlington, Va.: What sort of a defense, if any, can the Taliban launch against the U.S. attacks? Is there any danger of another country coming in to aid Afghanistan militarily?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Afghanistan's conventional forces, and particularly air defenses, are weak - and getting weaker due to US and coalition strikes. On the ground, they were winning relative to the Northern alliance, but that situation appears to be changing.

For the Taliban to strike back at the US, they would probably have to use supporters or aligned terrorist groups in other countries, either to attack US bases or (perhaps) to try to stage attacks on US soil.

What states might come to their aid? Only three countries recognized Taliban before the current crisis - the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Paksitan. The first two have already withdrawn diplomatic recognition, and Pakistan is serving as a conduit for US military force and intelligence efforts.

Perhaps some other country could try to provide covert support, but if it were caught the US response would probably be severe. I'm not sure what state would want to run that risk. Some individuals might provide funds, or try to provide some kinds of weapons - Al Qaeda has access to wealthy supporters and, perhaps, links for covert arms deals. But the breadth of the international coalition against Taliban is daunting, and the anger of the US at the Sept. 11 attacks should make people think twice about helping the taliban, under the circumstances.

Toronto, Canada: I've seen a report that China is massing "Muslim" troops along part of the Afghan border to support bin Laden. Is China a concern?

How much should we worry about their worries of a U.S.-Russian alliance? Does this mark a global power shift?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I haven't heard that, but it could be happening. I would think China would be very cautious under the circumstances.
Re: a US - Russian alliance, this has been a real opportunity for Russia to change its relationship with both the US and Europe. If it continues to participate whole-heartedly, this might provide a lot of opportunities for Russia to improve its economic and diplomatic position in the world.

Does that mark a global power shift? I'm not sure. Russia has had tremendous troubles in the last decade, and is a long way from getting back to the prestige and power of the Soviet Union. This could be a time when Russia's relationship with the world is redefined in a far more positive light, however.

Arlington, Va.: I've seen quite a few interviews with Muslim people in this country indicating their "disassociation" with bin Ladin's actions and stressing that they are good Americans. I'm sure that's true, but what would really convince me is to see the Muslim communities begin to crack down on some of the terriorist cells that may operate within in their own structure and come forward with information that would help eliminate those groups. Other than a couple of brave clerics, I have seen nothing like this. Is this happening and I'm just not seeing it?

(Ties into previous questioner's comments on having the Islamic clerics denounce the radicalism of Islam that bin Laden is preaching.)

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm honestly not asure about the status of Islamic clerics. We are getting intelligence support from a number of Arab states, and many states that we are closely aligned with have strong concerns about Islamic extremism in their countries (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

I think cracking down on Bin Laden will take time, and we'll have to wait and see, to some extent. Again, Musharraf's decision to sack his intelligence chief suggests some level of cooperation, since that chief was closely linked to and sympathetic to the Taliban.

Also, some of the crackdowns may take place very quietly, to protect these regimes from domestic unrest. Many parts of this conflict will take place in the shadows.

Chantilly, Va.: Dr. Hoyt,
I keep hearing from the news media that the U.S. is ready to take military action against other terrorist organizations in other countries besides Afghanistan. In your estimation, who are these countries, besides Iraq, and what organizations would you expect the U.S. to go after? Obviously, the U.S. needs the support of the coalition and especially support from the moderate Islamic clergy and our Arabic allies. How does the U.S. take military action against these other countries without losing support? Since Syria is on the U.S. list of those countries that sponsor terrorism, how does Syria’s election to the U.N. Security Council affect this situation?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: The State Department puts out a list of countries that support terrorism. If we were to attack all these countries, we would start a large global war.

Syria is a supporter of terrorism, but it has also been (at times) highly pragmatic about that support. I am not sure if they are currently viewed as a state that may merit a military assault in the near term. Clearly, Iraq is a hot topic. Iran, another supporter of state terrorism, does not appear to be a likely target - among other things, they actively and aggressively oppose Taliban.

I think a major reason we have not expanded the conflict to other states is to minimize the reaction in the Islamic world. Political considerations are being carefully weighed - which is a good thing.

Washington, D.C.: What gives the Taliban their confidence that they can take on a super power like the U.S. and its allies?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm not sure that isn't simply bluster. I also think they don't have much of a choice. But some of it may simply be belief that their cause is just and righteous.

Arlington, Va.: What is Libya doing now? Has it aided Bin Laden in any way?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: If I were Libya, I'd be lying low. I don't know about connections to Bin Laden, but I believe they offered a statement of sympathy to the attacks on Sept. 11.

Alexandria, Va.: With our forces focused on the Middle East are we spread too thin? Could North Korea use this opportunity to attempt a forceful reunification of the South or perhaps China having a go at Taiwan?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: We actually aren't spread nearly as thin, in many respects, as we were in Kosovo, which required more aircraft and especially electronic warfare systems. We're currently striking primarily with long-range bombers (to avoid using Arab bases) and have very few ground troops deployed. I'm not sure we've weakened Korea much at all.

Also, Kim Jong-Il has been doing relatively well by engaging in diplomacy with the US and ROK. I'm not sure he's that eager to attack right now. I could be wrong. Similarly, China might view this as an opportunity to resolve the Taiwan issue, but surely they notice that the US is in the midst of heavily rearming and is acting fairly belligerent. Right now might not be the best time to pick a fight.

Arlington, Va.: Dr. Hoyt, if you were planning the attacks on Afghanistan, what would your strategy be... or would you not be conducting military operations there?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I think I'd be doing somethin pretty close to what the administraiton's currently doing.

Boy, that sounds daring, doesn't it .

Seriously, though - there aren't actually a lot of meaningful military or political targets in Afghanistan, which is devastated form 20+ years of war. I certainly wouldn't try to invade - that's not a good idea, based on history and terrain. Aiding the opposition is probably the way to go, while trying to utilize intelligence (our own and others') to find Al Qaeda targets and, if possible, Bin Laden.

What I might do is lean a bit harder on Pakistan, although I'd be careful about that. But there are lots of groups that live in Pakistan, train in Afghanistan, and fight in Kashmir. We've banned a couple, but there are others.

I'd also be thinking more publicly about what Afghanistan (and, in fact, the world) will look like when this conflict is over. Afghanistan needs to be rebuilt, and some kind of regime put in place that will allow the country to thrive. That's not easy, and will require a ocnsiderable humanitarian commitment. But it's one we should make. We owe the Afghans a debt that is still unpaid. They defeated the Soviet Union, and we abandoned them. I'd like to see us put that right.

Washington, D.C.: We've heard all the rhetoric about how bin Laden wants to destroy the West due to our depravity and so on. What do you think is his actual objective and strategy?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: He has made several objectives public. The first is to get the US out of the PErsian Gulf (and it's worth remembering we were invited there by the local regimes). The second is to "resolve" the Paletsinian question, which in his eyes (I think) means to eliminate Israel. third is the issue of a fight against Islam (defined by him) against the world. That latter objective implies a long-term, civilizational struggle, where if he wins the world looks like Afghanistan under the Taliban. That's not a good world, from my perspective.

I'm not sure if he'd settle for something less, but I think like many struggles against terrorism it would take a lot of time and punishment to get him to back down. Even if he doesn't want to make Northern Virginia look like Kandahar, I think his first two objectives are completely unacceptable not only to the United States but also to many of the people and governments in the Middle East.

Arlington, Va.: The Palestinians are fighting for their homeland, too! Exiling them will not solve the problem. Isreal is just as much a Palestinian homeland as a Jewish homeland. This the problem. More people have died in the name of or for a religion than any other cause in human history.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: For the peace to be lasting, it will have to be worked out and accepted by both sides - even if neither is really happy with it. That will be difficult, but it was almost accomplished in the last couple of years.

Asuncioon, Paraguay: After the coalition defeat the Taliban regime, and catch Osama Bin Laden, what will likely be the next target?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm not really sure. It will depend on intelligence reports, to a great extent. Where are the major assets of Al Qaeda located? Where are they getting support? Are the states where their assets are located helping us, or defying us?

The "best possible world" would be one where after seeing what we do in Afghanistan, all the states that support terrorism and/or that currently have Al Qaeda cells operating immediately give us their whole-hearted support in eradicating the problem. I don't think that will happen. Various states in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, and Northern Africa (aomng other regions)all have strong terrorist connections. They may not be willing to give up that capability or commitment.

McLean, Va.: The Muslim holy month of Ramadan is coming up. Will there still be military attacks on Afghanistan during this time? Although it may seem detrimental to cease attacks during this time, it would serve as a good message to other Islamic countries that we do indeed respect their religion and, thus, perhaps, ease the tension that is building up against us.

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: I'm not sure. Arab forces have fought during Ramadan in the past (1973), so it certainly isn't completely forbidden to fight during this time. Sorry I can't help you any more with this one, but I'm just not sure where the administration will go on this one.

Washington, D.C.: Our goal is to win the war against terrorism. Can you give some indication on how we will know we are winning or won?

Dr. Timothy Hoyt: Wow. What a nasty question to ask someone who hasn't eaten lunch .

I'm not sure how much information will be public, or when. But the recent release of information by the British (their paper on the link between Sept. 11 attacks and Al Qaeda) or by the administration (the list of funds frozen) gives some idea about successes in terms of intelligence gathering and denial of resources.

This is going to be a new kind of a war of attrition - the objective is to deny the enemy political and economic support, territorial sanctuary, and eventually the ability to move or operate. Some indications of success will include the capture of high-ranking leaders of operatives, numbers of arrests in various countries, closure of cells, bank accounts, and arms dumps, and (more difficult to measure) levels of support for our efforts by foreign governments, intelligence agencies, and police forces.

Overthrow of the Taliban will be a significant success. Capture of Bin Laden and his top lieutenants will be a significant success.

On the other hand, we may not actually know we've "won" until there is a satisfactory peace between Israel and Palestine, and Israel is recognized formally by all governments in the Middle East. That issue is one of the key factors that contributes to continued Islamic extremism, which is a breeding ground for these kinds of terrorists. That may not be a viable short-term goal, but it should still remain a part of our vision for a future world, and perhaps for our definition of "winning."

   |       |