Bali blast affects Iraq debate

Bush says Bali attack appears to fit pattern

By Alex van Wel BBC correspondent in Washington

The horrific attack in Bali poses a critical question for Americans: How might it affect the debate over whether or not Washington should launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq?

The Los Angeles Times says the White House is likely to argue that it is proof the US should not wait to deal with the threats it faces.

But those opposed to action against Saddam Hussein are likely to hold it up as evidence that terrorism remains the major threat to America and should be tackled first.

The Democrat and former Vice-President, Al Gore, is one critic of military action.

We will fight, if need be, the war on terrorism on two fronts

President George Bush

He would not support last week's resolution by Congress authorising the use of force against Baghdad, and warned that focusing too much on Iraq could weaken the war on terrorism.

"Blending these two threats together as if they were the same could simultaneously create a more dangerous situation in Iraq and undermine the effectiveness of our global response to al-Qaeda," Mr Gore said through his spokesperson.

However the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is continuing to advocate early military action against Iraq as a measure to counter any threat to the US.

The New York Times reports that in a revised set of personal guidelines for committing forces to combat he wrote that America's leaders must quickly judge when diplomacy has failed and then "act forcefully, early, during the pre-crisis period" to foil an attack.

According to the paper, the memo shapes Mr Rumsfeld's thinking in his advice to President Bush over how to deal with Iraq.

The al-Qaeda question

The events in Bali also raise a second crucial question in the debate over whether the emphasis should be on terrorism or Iraq in protecting American security: Did al-Qaeda have a hand in the latest bombing?

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrat Bob Graham, is quoted in USA Today saying he "would not be surprised" if it was an al-Qaeda attack.

This is the terrorist network Washington blames for the death of almost 3,000 people on 11 September last year.

But others are comparing the Bali incident with the attacks on two US embassies in Africa in 1998, also blamed on al-Qaeda.

An unnamed western security analyst in Jakarta is quoted in the New York Times as saying the Indonesia blast is similar in magnitude to the Tanzania and Kenya attacks, and could not have been done by local terrorists alone.

Bali attack is posing critical questions

President Bush has said he is still awaiting proper analysis from his officials, but at this stage he assumed al-Qaeda was responsible for the Bali bombing.

Indonesian and Australian ministers have already said they believe al-Qaeda was involved. Mr Bush also noted that the Bali attack comes after a series of strikes and appeared to fit a pattern.

There was an attack last week on US marines in Kuwait, and an apparent terrorist attack on a French tanker off the coast of Yemen earlier this month.

However Mr Bush said he would not be distracted from his confrontation with Iraq.

"We will fight, if need be, the war on terrorism on two fronts," he told reporters on the White House lawn.

The president could already be trying to limit any criticism which the Bali bombing may elicit from sceptics of his policy on Iraq.