AMERICA STRIKES BACK:

Local reaction:
support, criticism

But everyone agrees the strikes
will not end the U.S. war with terrorists

By Susan Kreifels
Star-Bulletin

Feelings about the U.S. bombings today against alleged terrorist facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan received mixed reaction here, with peace activists saying it will only increase hatred for the United States and security analysts believing it was an appropriate response.

All agreed, however, that this would not end the war with terrorists, nor would it make the world a safer place for Americans.

The strikes were in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Africa. President Clinton said the groups were affiliated with Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire who is not supported by any state but whom U.S. officials say is a major sponsor of terrorism against Americans.

"This is a guy who declared war and is doing maximum damage," said Richard Baker, retired from the U.S. Foreign Service and a senior fellow at the East-West Center. "We have a right to strike back.

"But nobody should tell themselves the strike ended the war. Any American anywhere is now fair game, and he is even more likely to strike back."

Ralph Summy, director of the Matsunaga Institute for Peace, disagreed with the attack, calling it an ineffective act against terrorists and a "common, knee-jerk reaction" by the U.S. government.

"In cases like this, you don't resolve the problem, and often innocent people get killed. It doesn't frighten them; it's just a way of exacerbating the situation. It makes martyrs and heroes out of these guys."

Summy said the short-term solution is to increase security for likely U.S. targets around the world.

The long-term solution is to change what terrorists see as social injustice and a reason to attack the United States.

But James Kelly, with the Pacific Forum CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), said terrorism allegedly supported by bin Laden has no political or social motivation.

"It's not for any particular thing except that we are there. We are the infidels. This is more than an act of terrorism; it's an act of war. This deserves some kind of response."

Kelly said the terrorists must learn that embassy bombings will not be "cost-free."

Big Island peace activist Jim Albertini said he was "outraged" by the bombings.

"My gut reaction is pretty simple: It's a violent lashing out by Clinton to shift the focus away from his personal disgrace," Albertini said.

"It will only contribute to further international hatred of America for its blatant disrespect for international law and the sovereignty of other nations."

Albertini quoted the words of Indian nonviolence advocate Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind."

Baker said the silver lining of the U.S. bombings may be that the terrorists, in anger, may strike back in a sloppier method, helping the United States to track them down.

He also said bin Laden did not have unlimited numbers of terrorists but had to hire mercenaries. He said that takes time and training.

Many support bombing,
think timing is coincidental

WHAT do you think of the U.S. attack this morning on terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Africa?

Do you think the timing had anything to do with President Clinton's recent acknowledgment of an inappropriate relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky?

--Questions asked today by Star-Bulletin Reporter Pat Omandam at Fort Street Mall.

Nancy McNair, a downtown Honolulu office manager:

"I don't think we had enough information to know if it was justified, but I think he acted without consulting enough people.

"(U.S. Sen.) Arlen Specter (R, Penn.) was on TV, saying he knows nothing about it and he wants more answers, and I want more answers.

"Those are two friendly countries. They weren't informed. Israel wasn't informed. None of our allies were informed. I think Clinton is out of control.

"I think it helps (divert attention from Lewinsky), but I don't know if he did it. But I think he's cunning enough to think it could help him.

"Everything that man and his wife does is staged, so this could very well be part of it."

Brenda Smith, a nursing faculty member at Hawaii Pacific University:

"Did you go to the movie 'Wag the Dog?' Well, it's probably pure coincidence, but it was just kind of funny...

"It's kind of ironic that it comes on top of all this other stuff (Lewinsky)....

"You see, I'm one of those people -- I really don't care about whether or not he slept or did anything with Monica Lewinsky. We elected somebody who didn't inhale, and in the '60s, as far as I know -- I was there -- everybody I know inhaled in the '60s.

"We elected him, we re-elected him, so we got what we asked for, so we live with it."

John Kenney, a visitor from Gloucester, N.J.:

"If there was just cause for doing it, I see no reason why not."

"Well, I'm sure it will take the heat off of him a little bit (on the Lewinsky issue). That's for sure. Hopefully, that's not the reason, but I'm sure there is some question about that. I hope we wouldn't do that eventually. That's going a little bit too far, I would think."

Brian Sing, a network administrator for Hawaii Pacific University:

"I think it's good. I think the U.S. should strike back as soon as they find out who's responsible for the bombings and what not. I think we should be like Israel: We should strike back the minute there is an attack and we find out who it is. I don't think the United States should stand for terrorist attacks."

Kevin Pin, a Hawaii Pacific University senior:

"From the terrorists, I call this a cowardly act against the U.S. Instead of face to face with them. They use cowardly acts of terrorism against the U.S. citizens. They (U.S.) must take actions, or else innocent civilians would die for nothing, for no causes. You must know what you die for, or else life is so meaningless."

"Maybe, for the Middle East terrorists, they see the president of the U.S. in this (Lewinsky) stuff, which does not give him the respect of the people of the U.S. That's why they bombed it (U.S. embassies) at that time."

Wallace "Wally" Sakamoto, a retiree:

"We need protection. (Terrorism) can happen to Hawaii, too. We need to protect the innocent people. I agree with him 100 percent. It can happen to Hawaii, it can happen to (Washington) D.C. Who knows?"

Shirley Grokett, a Hawaii Newspaper Agency classified ads salesclerk:

"Well, when I first heard Clinton come on there, I did think of the movie 'Wag the Dog,' but I trust him. And if it's necessary to do the air strikes against terrorism, then I support it.

"They had the bombing before all of this (Lewinsky) came out, so I don't think that it's related."

A rundown on Pearl-based ships There are currently no Pearl Harbor-based warships in the Persian Gulf region. The only warships that were recently in the gulf are scheduled to return to Hawaii tomorrow morning. However, the Navy, as in the past, declined to say whether any submarines are deployed to the gulf. More than 550 sailors aboard the Arleigh Burke destroyer USS Russell and the Perry-class guided missile frigate USS Crommelin will be united with their families here after spending six months away from home. While in the gulf, both ships -- which left Pearl Harbor Feb. 21 -- also supported the United Nations sanctions against Iraq. Also in the Western Pacific area is the salvage ship USS Salvor, commanded by Lt. Cmdr. Bette Bush. The 255-foot vessel and its crew of 97 left Pearl Harbor in April and is expected to return next month.