In both word, at the National Cathedral last week, and deed, President Bush is proving to be more than a capable leader in a time of crisis. He has responded to the airplane attacks with calm and determination; he has understood the nation’s outrage and turned that outrage into action. But he has not done these things alone, and two members of his administration have stood out particularly in the aftermath of the attacks.

Dick Cheney did not become vice president by virtue of having an electrifying personality. His demure demeanor may not have been a great asset on the campaign trail, but the calm, forceful character that lies beneath is proving to be of enormous value now.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Mr. Cheney delivered a blunt assessment of the current situation and of what lies ahead that all civilized people, here and abroad, should find both sobering and encouraging. Terrorists, and all who support them, should find it terrifying.

In the aftermath of last Tuesday’s terrorist attacks, Americans and their allies have heard resolute statements that the scourge of terrorism will be brought to an end, often followed by less resolute statements that the amorphous nature of the underlying international terrorism network will make this extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish. Mr. Cheney made clear it would be difficult but doable.

“It is a mean, nasty, dangerous, dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena,” Mr. Cheney told moderator Tim Russert. That came in response to a specific question about whether the United States will set aside its current ban on paying unsavory – that is, criminal – sources for intelligence, but it clearly was intended to apply to the entire range of potential actions to be taken against the terrorist network and its enabling nations. The phrase, “the full wrath of the United States,” was aimed directly at nations harboring terrorists.

The vice president’s succinct description of the network shows that the administration understands the nature of this enemy, appreciates its strength and already has identified its weakness. Osama bin Laden’s organization, al Qaeda, is structured rather like a holding company for terrorism; that is, it does not participate in the nuts-and-bolts planning of specific attacks, but instead bankrolls terrorist cells that have proven their ability to commit atrocities. Without this international flow of money, the international terrorism network ceases to exist – the attention Mr. Cheney gave this point should leave no doubt that the “mean, nasty, dangerous, dirty business” ahead includes shutting of this pipeline and that the administration’s definition of “harboring” applies not just to terrorists but to terrorists’ money.

In a similar way, Mr. Cheney’s statement that having bin Laden’s “head on a platter” would be desirable but would not end the war against terrorism carries a double meaning. America and its allies must know that a long and hard struggle lies ahead. Enemies must know that their culpability will not vanish so easily, either.

Mr. Cheney stepped out his laconic character when giving a vivid description of his role in the first hours of the crisis. He gave suggestions for the statement President Bush made upon first hearing the awful news, he oversaw the evacuation of Cabinet members, he told to president to delay his return to Washington after it was learned the White House and perhaps Air Force One were targets, he recommended the president authorize the downing of any errant aircraft, he even stayed on the job but out of sight at Camp David after rumors spread that he was incapacitated by chronic heart disease. Nothing flashy there, just competent, tough decision-making that rises to the occasion.

.

As words of support poured in from the traditional allies of the United States after the attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell was contacting countries less likely to be terribly upset that America had been bit by terrorists. But by getting a read on where Pakistan or Syria or Iran stood he has been able to expand the options the United States and its allies must pursue in hunting those who directed or aided the attacks.

Whether Osama Bin Laden is surrendered tomorrow to the United States or remains in hiding for months or even years to come, a U.S. coalition has the lengthy job of rooting out terrorists, cutting off their funding, punishing nations that support them and rendering the terrorists and their networks ineffective. NATO, in swiftly invoking its Article 5, could be of significant support, but a coalition will need intelligence as least as much as firepower, and that intelligence could well come from nations that do not view NATO as a friend.

That’s why Secretary Powell’s mission to bring together 100 countries to carry out a war on terrorism is so important. Russia has already agreed to share information about Afghanistan’s Taliban government, with Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage expected to fly to Moscow this week. More nations undoubtedly will come forward with offers

to help. But Secretary Powell’s greater challenge is to keep that flow of information coming a month, six months and a year from now.

Already, Middle Eastern countries are beginning to voice caution about an expected U.S. military campaign. The Bush administration has been forcefully clear of what it expects from allies, but it also has the quiet challenge of ensuring that lukewarm supporters do not put themselves in a position of waffling over whether they will harbor terrorists. This will require regular communication about coalition goals.

Secretary Powell occasionally has stood outside an administration that had emphasized a go-it-alone attitude. It was an attitude that could have been attributed to over-confidence or to unwillingness to compromise positions for the sake of agreement.

Whatever it was, it appears gone now that greater demands have arrived. Secretary Powell deserves credit for the emerging international counter-attack.