(4 of 6)
Because terrorists of this new breed are motivated mainly by religious fervor and are part of a global network, they are tough to take out. "Traditional" terrorist groups like the I.R.A. or the Basque group ETA have had distinct nationalist goals; their operatives have been recruited from a relatively small pool, defined by national allegiance, and have often been eventually wooed into mainstream politics. Al-Qaeda is different. On the very fringe of the Islamic world, within which its methods provoke widespread revulsion, its political goal, if it can be said to have one, is the creation of a global Islamic caliphate; it has no interest in conventional politics. And because its motivation is religious rather than nationalistic, it can recruit anywhere from the disaffected among the world's 1 billion Muslims. That's why top-quality surveillance and policing are as much a part of the fight against terrorism as anything armies might do. You can't lob a cruise missile at Delray Beach, Fla., or dispatch a Delta Force squad to Fort Lee, N.J.--though both towns seem to have been home, at least for a while, to some of those who hijacked the planes last week.
With time, however, the U.S. hopes that it can end the tacit assistance that some nations offer terrorists, then eradicate the terror cells themselves. Last week Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke of "removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems" and ending state support for terrorism. Wolfowitz is one of those who have advocated toppling Saddam Hussein in a process of "regime change" in Iraq. The case would be hugely advanced if it could be shown that Saddam was involved in last week's incidents. Was he? Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, says there is "some evidence" that Saddam was involved, evidence that is "credible enough that you can't take Iraq off the list." U.S. intelligence sources tell TIME that, so far, the case against Saddam is vague and thin--a few intelligence reports from southwestern Asia have suggested an Iraqi role in training last week's terrorists--and not strong enough to put Iraq on the target list for immediate retaliation. Yet even if Saddam was involved, changing the Iraqi regime to one more aligned with Western interests would be a tall order. Defense Department sources tell TIME that a classified study has just concluded that absent a long war--of the sort the World War II Allies fought against Germany and Japan--it is almost impossible for a military intervention from outside to impose changes that stick.
Hence early, armed retaliation is likely to be limited to Afghanistan. From 1994 through 1996, the Islamic extremist Taliban moved to fill the power vacuum that had existed since the end of the war. Although the Taliban frequently claims to keep bin Laden in a box, in practice it has defended him. Opposition sources say a brigade of his fighters has been on the front lines in the Taliban's war against the Northern Alliance, led by Ahmed Shah Massood. (In what may turn out to be an indication of trouble to come, Massood was the victim of a suicide bomber two days before the attacks on New York and Washington. After days of conflicting reports, his death now seems certain.)