BIN LADEN ELUSIVE, PAKISTAN'S SUPPORT UNCERTAIN

WASHINGTON--Statements from inside the Bush administration not to expect an
immediate military response to the terrorist attack of Sept. 11 do not
represent a diminishing of resolve. Rather, they constitute recognition of
reality.

At least the first U.S. strike definitely seems directed at Afghanistan.

Such a blow may not be all that effective in rooting out terrorism or even
at eliminating Osama bin Laden as the global leader of the al-Qaida
umbrella organization. But the Taliban does represent a regime closely
associated with terrorism and is so universally detested that an attack on
it will be widely popular around the world. Such an air assault might
partially assuage the demand by ordinary Americans for retribution.

Even though Afghanistan certainly is the clear target, problems persist.

First, Pentagon spokesmen Wednesday emphasized to reporters that
''intelligence is all important.'' Translated, that means the United States
still does not know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his lieutenants.

Second, assuming that the initial attack will be from the air, the
logistical problems of basing bombers for flights over Afghanistan are
unresolved. U.S. war planners have a choice of in-air refueling for planes
based on naval aircraft carriers, or finding land bases for air raids.

Land bases are most unlikely to be provided by either Iran or China. That
leaves Pakistan as the most likely base--explaining why the United States
since Sept. 11 has tried to revive formerly warm relations with Pakistan
that long ago grew cold.

Officially, the Pakistanis are calling on the Taliban to expel bin Laden
and promising to coalesce with America and the West. In a televised speech
to his country Wednesday, President Pervez Musharraf explained to his
Muslim citizens why it was necessary to join the Americans in an alliance
against terrorism.

The success by the Pakistani general-turned-politician in convincing his
listeners appeared limited, to judge from what happened next. Just north of
the Afghan border Wednesday, more than 1,000 protesters marched through the
town of Mingora under a ''Terrorist America'' street banner, burning
American flags and shouting the praises of bin Laden. In the large border
town of Peshawar, 1,500 protesters burned the Stars and Stripes and chanted
''Death to the U.S.A.'' and ''Osama is our hero.''

In-air refueling of carrier-based aircraft would seem dependent on
Pakistan, but not entirely so. U.S. warplanes probably would be refueling
in and near Pakistani air space, and this raises the danger of
anti-aircraft fire from pro-Taliban elements in the Pakistani army.

The question that is quietly asked in Washington is how much control Gen.
Musharraf has over his country's armed forces that raised him to power in a
coup. That is a question that is being pondered by U.S. strategists at the
highest level.

Another factor slowing the U.S. response is the complaint by the Pentagon
that there are insufficient ''interesting'' targets for aerial bombardment.
Experienced congressional investigators disagree, pointing to abundant
opium cultivation. This major source of heroin for the European market
helps finance al-Qaida.

Solving the problems involved in any aerial attack on Afghanistan will not
require the six months needed in 1991 to attack Iraq in the Gulf War. But
George W. Bush has a lot less time than his father did. Prominent senators
in private conversation with me have set the limit at somewhere between 10
days and two weeks. The military planners have a lot of work to do.