Initial air attacks may force Taliban to rethink

Military strategists are considering the launching of air strikes against the Taliban in an attempt to force the handover of Osama bin Laden.

But despite a massive military build-up in the region, an imminent military onslaught against targets in Afghanistan is becoming, if anything, less likely. For all the media speculation on the airwaves and in the press, the White House and the Pentagon have provided no more information of what they have in mind to senior congressmen and top allied diplomats here than did Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, in his anticlimactic meeting with Nato defence ministers in Brussels.

Perhaps this vagueness – so different from the fanfare surrounding preparations for the Gulf war 10 years ago – is deliberate, to keep the foe off balance, while a precise operation, on which President George Bush has already signed off, goes into effect. "We're not going to discuss the timetables we're thinking about for any aspect of this operation", Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday.

At the weekend, everything seemed to be falling into place. A military strike looked days away at most. In selective briefings, officials were sketching out a broad battle plan: first go after Osama bin Laden himself and his henchmen in Afghanistan; then the Taliban regime, and the al-Qa'ida network. Then would follow a wider campaign likely to last years and employing diplomatic, intelligence and financial weapons as well as military might to fight terrorism across the world.

President Bush's address to Congress on Thursday evening bristled with confidence and determination, as he called on countries to stand up and be counted: "Are you with us or against us?" Since then certainty has receded. The prospect of imminent military strikes is being talked down on all sides, by no one more vigorously than by Mr Wolfowitz after meeting Nato representatives on Wednesday.

"It can't be stressed enough that everybody who is waiting for miltiary action needs to rethink this thing", said the man regarded as the biggest hawk in the administration, who sees the crisis as grounds for a new offensive against Saddam Hussein, and who has called for "ending states" which sponsored terrorism.

Yesterday Gen Hugh Shelton, the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, again implicitly warned against the "quick-strike, quick-fix" expectations and described the anti-terror campaign as "one of the most difficult missions the US military has ever been given." As of yesterday there was no sign the US knew the whereabouts of Mr bin Laden. If it did, an attack would almost certainly have happened already. Instead the emphasis has shifted to building up the opposition Northern Alliance in its struggle with the Taliban, beefing up surveillance and getting special units into place.

But the latter forces will need time to familiarize themselves with the terrain. A setpiece attack (if there is to be one) against obvious Taliban targets such as airbases, air defence facilities and aircraft, may have to wait until these preparations are complete – and may thus be weeks away.

An extra complication is the already immense refugee crisis in and around Afghanistan which, the US authorities know full well, a frontal military assault would only worsen. Then there is the approaching Afghan winter, which traditionally slows military operations on the ground. All these factors are being mulled by US planners. There is no sign they have reached a conclusion.

Under proposals discussed in Washington and London, the first attack, whenever it comes, would be followed by the Afghan leadership being allowed "time to recant" about Mr bin Laden if they want to avoid a second, full-scale, offensive. But any decision to target the Taliban directly will be seen as a major shift in policy by the Western coalition, which had, until now, stated the primary aim was the capture of Mr bin Laden and the destruction of his al-Qa'ida terrorist network.

The plan would face some opposition within the administrations in both Washington and London. An air attack on the Taliban would put a great strain on the international alliance against terrorism President Bush is organising. There is also the prospect of it adding to the thousands of refugees already attempting to flee the country.