U.S. Missile Strikes Pose Dilemma for Allies in the Region

The U.S. decision to strike at suspected terrorist outposts in Sudan and Afghanistan has created a dilemma for America’s allies in the region.

On one hand, moderate Arab governments in the region want to see Islamic extremists weakened because they find themselves in the gun sights of radical groups such as Islamic Jihad and the shadowy terrorist network allegedly spearheaded by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden.

On the other, any use of America’s military power inflames anti-U.S. passions on the streets and may even aid terrorist groups in recruiting new fighters.

The dilemma could be seen plainly Friday in the balanced response of Egypt to the missile strikes. The government condemned terrorism, but it suggested that the whole issue ought to be turned over to the United Nations.

“Egypt said there was the need for the [U.N.] Security Council to take the appropriate decisions against terrorism . . . and those countries which extend to terrorist elements the assistance they need,” said an official statement read on Egyptian state television.

The Cairo government also called for an international summit to address the problem of terrorism, which has resulted in hundreds of deaths in Egypt during the past six years and has damaged the country’s economy because of a decrease in foreign tourism.

But Egypt neither endorsed nor criticized the U.S. attacks themselves.

Similarly, Pakistan showed itself of two minds.

The Pakistani government’s close intelligence cooperation with U.S. investigators helped the United States to finger Bin Laden’s operation as the prime suspect in the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Yet the Pakistani authorities Friday were sharply critical of the U.S. response and were at pains to disavow any foreknowledge of the Tomahawk cruise missile attacks.

In a telephone conversation with President Clinton, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said the U.S. strikes “constituted a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent states,” the Pakistani government said.

The statement said Sharif told Clinton that Washington should have tried dialogue and consultations instead of resorting to missiles, according to wire service accounts.

Early in the day, the Pakistani government charged that a U.S. cruise missile had struck a village in Pakistan and killed six people. But after giving differing accounts to U.S. officials, it withdrew the claim.

Pakistan had especially good reasons to help out the United States in the investigation of the embassy bombings. It is desperate to gain relief from the economic sanctions imposed on it and India after the two South Asian powers tested nuclear devices earlier this year. Those sanctions have particularly hurt Pakistan, whose economy is on the verge of collapse.

But any wish to be on Washington’s good side in the investigation did not carry over into endorsing the U.S. military response--not with the impassioned anti-U.S. reaction to the attack on neighboring Afghanistan among ordinary Muslims in Pakistan.

From Karachi to Peshawar, Pakistanis across the political spectrum denounced the U.S. strikes. Boisterous crowds burned American flags, torched tires and batted around headless effigies of Clinton.

Still, the initial anger appeared less widespread than many Pakistanis had predicted. Most of the demonstrations, while intense and colorful, failed to draw more than 1,000 people.

Many Pakistanis said the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan differed little from the Aug. 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Others said they resented the U.S. government firing missiles through Pakistan en route to Bin Laden’s camps. Many of the marchers described the suspected terrorist as a standard-bearer for Muslim pride who was justly battling American domination.

“Bin Laden is a hero of Islam--there is a consensus among Muslims on that,” said Anyaat Lullam, 40, during a prayer meeting in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. “American forces are occupying holy places in Saudi Arabia, and he is trying to force them out.”

Outrage over the U.S. strikes seemed to extend beyond the crowds--which were dominated by followers of the religious parties--to the middle and professional classes as well. Some said the anger reflected a deeper sense of betrayal stretching back to Afghanistan’s war against the Soviet Union. The United States poured millions of dollars into Pakistan during the 1980s and then cut most of that funding off once the war was over. When America fired its missiles across Pakistan, many Pakistanis said Friday, the United States was taking advantage of its longtime ally once again.

“America has always used Pakistan,” said Ehtesham Shami Waheed, 24, a student standing apart from one of the Islamabad marches. “With America, Pakistan is like a slut. We are very frustrated.”

What makes America’s friends in the region uncomfortable is a perception that the United States is following a double standard.

To many Muslims, the U.S. seems more than willing to heap punishment on states like Iraq, Libya and Sudan while looking the other way when Israel expands settlements in the West Bank and elsewhere and backs away from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. That policy fuels anti-Americanism and ultimately terrorist attacks, and then the United States responds.

Elsewhere in the Middle East on Friday, there were sharp rebukes and rote condemnation of the U.S. military strikes, in the form of demonstrations and fiery newspaper editorials.

Qatar’s independent newspaper Al Sharq said the United States was resorting to the “law of the jungle.”

But the criticism was tempered by acknowledgment in some quarters that the terrorist threat posed by Bin Laden’s organization is aimed not just at the United States but at moderate Arab governments in Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf.

An Egyptian newspaper editor, asking not to be identified by name, said much of the fiercer criticism emanating from the region could and should be discounted.

“Some people are happy and content to see attacks on headquarters and camps of terrorists, from which we have suffered so much,” he said.

“The U.S. had to act. It should have moved quite a long time ago.”

Daniszewski reported from Washington and Filkins from Islamabad. Special correspondent Kamal Siddiqi in Karachi also contributed to this report.