Pakistan fashion magazine

George W. Bush has declared war on terrorism; but this is like no other war that has gone before. It is not nation against nation. It is not government against guerrilla army. It is several nations against what might be thousands of people living in hiding in as many as 40 different countries.

According to the U.S. President the goal is to destroy the terrorist network known as al-Qaeda and any government that gives sanctuary to it.

The second part of that strategy is the easiest to achieve. One government that harboured al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden has already been toppled. The ultra-conservative Taliban government of Afghanistan had welcomed bin Laden and his band of extremists. With the blessing of Afghanistan's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, al-Qaeda set up training camps and enjoyed the protection of the government.

[Graph Not Transcribed]

A U.S.-led coalition in which Canada played a minor role bombed al-Qaeda bases and Taliban positions. On the ground, the Northern Alliance attacked Taliban troops. The Northern Alliance is made up of several tribal groups opposed to the Taliban, but it has a human rights record that is not much better than that of the government it was fighting against.

The Taliban resistance to the co-ordinated attacks collapsed more quickly than most people expected. Without the support of Afghanistan's government, al-Qaeda was overrun in a few days. The bombing offensive started on 7 October 2001 and there was only some mopping up to be done by New Year. But, it's way too early for anyone to say "Mission Accomplished."

Just after the bombing of Afghanistan began, The Economist reported: "Arab afghanis (Muslims who fought to expel the Russians from Afghanistan) in London estimate that 5,000-10,000 Saudis passed through the Afghan camps [of al-Qaeda], and most are now dormant in sleeper-cells." It's also known that large numbers of Algerians, Egyptians, Palestinians, and at least one American, and one Australian are graduates of bin Laden's terrorist training camps.

A few hundred of these were killed or captured in Afghanistan. It's safe to assume, many more are now lying low all over the world. Tracking them all down and either killing them or putting them behind bars would seem to be very difficult. The Chief of the British Defence Staff has said the process may well take decades.

Al-Qaeda cells are small and isolated. Two cells could be operating within shouting distance of one another and not know of the other's existence. The separation is important so if authorities uncover one terrorist cell it won't lead them to any others. Of course, there has to be some co-ordination, but whoever controls groups of cells would be in a secure location. Also, if a controller was unlucky enough to be scooped up he or she could be relied on to take any knowledge of the network to their grave - no matter what. Apparently, the leaders of cells dream up their own schemes and pass them on to bin Laden. If the al-Qaeda boss likes the plan he provides the money to put it into action.

The difficulty facing the U.S. government and its allies is high-lighted by the fact that the September 11 terrorists weren't spotted before they struck. Most of the 19 al-Qaeda agents had been living in the United States or Europe for months or even years. Some had taken flight training at American flying schools. They had lived quietly among the people they plotted to kill and nobody found them suspicious.

Before September 11, U.S. authorities had been investigating bin Laden. In a congressional report released the week of the attack it was noted that: "In building his network, bin Laden has assembled a coalition of (different) radical Islamic groups of varying nationalities to work toward common goals - the expulsion of non-Muslim control or influence from Muslim-inhabited countries."

Most of those people, it seems, are still around. Many are well educated and well travelled so they can slip easily into Western society. They are also well financed and appear to have access to all the money they need.

Having demolished the Taliban and the al-Qaeda training camps, the U.S. still faced what it did in the beginning, some difficult choices. In the colourful language used by the U.S. Administration, President George Bush was in an AOS situation - All Options Stink.

No hint of successful completion of the "War Against Terrorism" can be claimed without the neutralization of Osama bin Laden. But, as of this writing, he had disappeared. Some said he was in Somalia, others Iraq. There were reports he had been seen in Pakistan with his beard shaved off. Or, he might be in the well-fortified bases of Islamic separatists in the southern Philippines. What is the United States to do, invade every country where Osama bin Laden is reported to have surfaced? President Bush has already been told by his allies that they're not keen on expanding the conflict outside of Afghanistan.

What if Osama bin Laden is captured and taken in chains to face his accusers? Any trial would give him a global platform from which to preach his propaganda. Suppose he is blown into tiny scraps by one of those smart bombs we hear about? In the minds of those who already consider him semi-divine he will take on the mantle of martyrdom. And, if he escapes altogether, he becomes the Robin Hood of the Muslim world. In the words of Yale University military history professor Sir Michael Howard: "He can't lose."

And, say many experts, the al-Qaeda network is likely to survive the elimination of Osama bin Laden anyway.

Another of the options that stink is what's known as "dirty ops." Spy agencies and specially trained military personnel around the world have been doing this for years. People identified as "enemies" for one reason or another are killed. No trace of a body is found and, of course, no trace of the killer.

An order comes from a head of government, and the message is something like: "I don't want to know how you do it, but take care of this." Without the order from above society calls it murder and tries to track down and punish whoever is responsible. With the order it's called dirtyops and the people who do the work are very quietly rewarded by their governments.

Some are suggesting this is the best way to deal with al-Qaeda, others are suggesting it's already going on.

But, the guardians of civil liberties tend to get squeamish about this sort of thing. They say the foundation of our democratic society is the rule of law. We must apply the rule of law equally to everyone: terrorists, suspected terrorists, prime ministers, police officers, citizens, and spies. If we don't treat all lives with the same respect we lose all moral authority.

[Graph Not Transcribed]

The civil liberties people have a good point, but so do those trying to protect us. The bad guys don't play by the rules, they say, so don't expect us to. That's why this is an option that stinks.

Finally, there's the "do nothing" choice. This, of course, has already been ruled out by the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan. Even many of its supporters were silenced by U.S. President George Bush's statement that: "Either you are with us, or you're with the terrorists."

Despite the risk of being branded unpatriotic or even traitorous, some armchair strategists have still given the peace option a good working over. The arguments in favour of a less aggressive response to the September 11 atrocities were well expressed in the November 2001 issue of New Internationalist. The magazine's editors wrote that:

"You can bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, take out [Iraq's dictator] Saddam Hussein and lob cruise missiles into Syria. But this will do nothing to wipe out terrorism. The bleak refugee camps, the hopeless squalid slums, and the corrupt rulers backed by the U.S. and other Western nations will still be in place. Thousands more 'bin Ladens' will be waiting in the wings - there is an inexhaustible supply. Violence leads, inevitably, to more violence."

The supporters of a more peaceful approach say we should have done everything by the book. We should have declared the terrible events of September 11 a crime against humanity, not an act of war. With United Nations backing, every country harbouring someone accused of a crime against humanity is required by international law to hand them over. They would then be brought before an international court to answer the charges against them.

If the accused are not handed over then whoever shelters them is subject to a variety of penalties. These include: diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and military attack. Unfortunately, history does not offer up a lot of examples where this strategy has worked. Indeed, in dealing with extremists such as bin Laden and the Taliban, the offer of peace has always been a failed option.