Let Iraq Wait. Finish Al Qaeda. by Fareed Zakaria

December 10, 2001, U.S. Edition

Let Iraq Wait. Finish Al Qaeda
Saddam Hussein isn't going anywhere. The real danger now lies in the global terror network.
By Fareed Zakaria

Here we go again. With victory on the horizon in Afghanistan, Washington pundits are back to their favorite sport--debating when to topple Saddam Hussein. There's just one problem. The war against Al Qaeda is not over yet.

The debate over Iraq is taking place far more furiously outside government than it is inside. The formal meetings of the president's top national-security advisers--the "principals committee"--has barely discussed Iraq. (It was mentioned briefly in last week's sessions.) Their focus instead has been on prosecuting the current campaign to a successful close, ensuring that Afghanistan does not revert to chaos or civil war, and then beginning to think about the "next phase."

This is wise. Destroying the Taliban regime turned out to be easy. Finding and killing the Al Qaeda leadership could prove more difficult, requiring search missions and guerrilla warfare. But this phase of the military action in Afghanistan is crucial. Remember, we went to war against the Taliban because it sheltered Al Qaeda.

And Al Qaeda is much bigger than its Afghan base. In a series of articles last week the Financial Times painted the clearest picture yet of the shadowy outfit. Based on outside sources as well as Western intelligence agencies, it describes a vast, decentralized group of organizations with operations in 40 to 60 countries. The head of Germany's federal criminal agency, the BKA, estimates that 70,000 people have been trained in Al Qaeda camps and are now spread throughout the world.

Their finances remain a mystery, but the FT notes that "Islamist organizations--many of them linked to bin Laden--can draw on funds estimated at between $5 billion and $16 billion." Bin Laden's take from one source alone--the Afghan drug trade--was $1 billion a year. These facts, coupled with increasing evidence of technical notes, plans and documents obtained from "safe houses" in Kabul--suggest that Al Qaeda has the interest and the capability to acquire or build weapons of mass destruction.

It also plans methodically for events far in the future. The Al Qaeda cell that plotted the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania did so in complete secrecy in Nairobi for five years before making its move. The September 11 attacks now appear to have been planned for a lot longer than the two years originally estimated.

Even though the Taliban was their cover and Osama bin Laden their leader, Al Qaeda will survive the death of both. If any of bin Laden's top associates were to escape, they would be able to revive the network. The real brains behind Al Qaeda is Ayman al-Zawahiri and a handful of other Egyptians. Even without a leader, the cells will still try to function independently. Recall that bin Laden's first response after the September 11 attacks was to boast that even if he died it would not matter: "A hundred Osamas will take my place."

Destroying Al Qaeda means continuing the dragnet around the world, making arrests, shutting down safe houses and closing bank accounts. Washington will have to use this moment to press its allies to step up their efforts. In some cases this means more intelligence cooperation. In others it means overt measures. It must also use this moment to get at the true source of these operations, which are in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It is Saudi money and Egyptian brains than have made Al Qaeda possible. The first, crucial task is to get the Saudis to stop the flow of money into the "charities" that fund Islamic extremism. Just as the American decision to stop Irish charities from funding the IRA crippled the army's terrorist wing, so a hard-line approach from the Saudi monarchy would help dry up Al Qaeda's cash flow.

There will also have to be more military action. The next phase of this war on terror should probably move to the Philippines, whose government needs help battling the Al Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf. This group trained Ramzi Yousef, the man who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. It planned a gruesome terrorist attack in 1994 to blow up 11 U.S. passenger jets simultaneously. It intended to assassinate Pope John Paul II when he visited the Philippines. (These plans were discovered by sheer luck when an explosives experiment in Yousef's apartment went awry and the police looked through his laptop.) The organization is active, maintains training camps and is probably planning its next move right now.

Iraq is a serious problem. But it is not an immediate problem. There is little evidence that Saddam Hussein has been involved with Al Qaeda's activities. His intelligence service appears to have been single-mindedly focused on circumventing the sanctions placed on Iraq--a task in which it has succeeded. The only long-term solution to the threat from Iraq is a change of regime. But this requires time to develop a serious, workable plan and garner some international support. (As of now, even Tony Blair has told President Bush that he would not support a move against Iraq.) Meanwhile, as this debate takes place, there is a vast global organization that has killed thousands of Americans and is still active and in all certainty plotting to kill many more at this moment. Can we please kill it first?