Generals rule out 'D-Day invasion'
AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch
a ten-year "war on terrorism" - Operation Noble Eagle - involving
a completely new military and diplomatic strategy to eliminate terrorist
networks and cells around the world.
Despite the mass build-up of American forces in the Gulf and the Indian
Ocean, there will be no "D-Day invasion" of Afghanistan and no
repeat of the US-led Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, defence
The notion that a US-led multinational coalition would attack Afghanistan
from all sides for harbouring Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi dissident
leader and prime suspect for the terrorist outrages in New York and Washington,
has been rejected in Washington and London. The sources also say that the
planned campaign is not being focused on just "bringing bin Laden
The build-up of firepower by the Americans in the region, notably the two
aircraft carrier battle groups that are to be joined by a third carrier,
USS Theodore Roosevelt, is seen as a major display of available military
capability. While it is important for these assets to be in the right place
in case of a political decision to launch a strike, there are no plans
for a "short-term fix".
The dramatically different anti-terrorism campaign is being planned to
meet what is now regarded as the most dangerous threat to global security,
known as asymmetric warfare. "We're expecting it to last from five
to ten years," one source said.
New ideas are needed to counter small groups armed with the minimum of
weaponry, whether conventional or non-conventional. Such groups have the
capability to attack a nation as powerful as the United States, which is
equipped with the full range of modern weapons and professional Armed Forces.
Old doctrines for fighting wars, based on lining up tanks and artillery
and layers of troops, are being thrown out and replaced by a more subtle
and wide-ranging doctrine which seeks to defeat the enemy at its own game.
"The aim is not to go for the enemy's strengths, but its weaknesses,"
one source said.
American and British planners are working on the basis that military strikes
will take place only as part of a broader global counter-terrorist operation,
embracing every other type of international action - diplomatic, economic
Most of the focus of the ten-year campaign plan, the sources say, is on
using military action as a potent back-up to all the other strands of Operation
However, President Bush, conscious of the demand for "revenge"
from the American public, might sanction shorter-term military operation
by special forces, or airstrikes, but only if there is sufficient intelligence
to guarantee a sucessful outcome. "There's no point in firing a lot
of missiles at bin Laden if they miss their target, or launching Tomahawks
at bin Laden training camps if they are empty," one source said.
Donald Rumsfeld, the American Defence Secretary, also gave the strongest
hint yesterday of what Operation Noble Eagle is all about. "I think
what you will see evolve over the next six, eight, ten, 12 months, probably
over a period of years, is a coalition to help battle terrorists,"
he told CNN.
He added: "This is a very new type of conflict or battle or campaign
or war or effort, for the United States. We're moving in a measured manner.
As we gather information, we're preparing appropriate courses of action,
and they run across the political and economic and financial, military,
British officials said the whole focus of the long-term American approach
was being driven by Richard Cheney, the American Vice-President, and General
Colin Powell, the Secretary of State. The combination of the two highly
experienced men was guaranteeing a well-coordinated strategy. "Everyone
now knows it's going to be a long haul, not a spectacular single strike,"
one official said.
The war on terrorism could be likened, they said, to the war on drugs or
poverty, and the best way to undermine and eventually dismantle the terrorist
structures around the world was to use the method of "hearts and minds"
- encouraging foreign governments and people to join in the "war"
so that terrorists would be isolated and identified.
Some of the most dramatic achievements, the sources say, might come, not
from military action, but from political pressure on foreign governments
to turn their backs on terrorism and to hand over the organisers of terrorist
They point to the campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. Although the airstrikes
fitted more closely to the "old doctrine concept" of using massed
firepower to target the enemy, which brought criticism from many parts
of the world, Nato was also seen to be working as a humanitarian agency
with its operation in Albania helping to build shelters for the thousands
of refugees pouring out of Kosovo.
The eventual outcome, the political downfall of Slobodan Milosevic and
the decision by the new Government to hand him over to the war crimes tribunal
in The Hague, is seen as a classic example of how military action can serve
two purposes, defeating the enemy and effecting political change.
In the Gulf War, the American-led coalition achieved one objective, driving
the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but not the other, the overthrow of President
Saddam Hussein by his own people.
Already, the sources say, just over a week after the terrorist attacks
in America, there have been positive developments: the Israeli and Palestinian
leaders have agreed a new ceasefire and 1,000 clerics have been forced
to gather in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, to discuss the fate of
Yesterday it was also announced that President Putin is to visit Nato headquarters
in Brussels on October 3 and will meet Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the
Secretary- General, another positive sign that the Russian leader supports
the campaign against terrorism.
Russia and Nato put out a joint statement last week condemning the terrorist
attacks and vowing that they would not go unpunished.
Other coalitions against terrorism are also being rapidly formed and several
countries, notably Pakistan yesterday, have offered bases for American
However, sources in Washington say there are no plans to deploy huge numbers
of US troops to Pakistan, which would only inflame Islamic fundamentalists
opposed to the decision by President Musharraf to grant US access to two
air bases in the country.