TUESDAY, September 11, 2001, will be unforgettable for all Americans.

It's a day when the picturesque postcard view of Manhattan's twin towers of the World Trade Center, the pictogram of America's economic power, was reduced to mere rubble.

The Pentagon, the symbol of America's military power, also became a victim of a well-coordinated and executed terrorist design. More than 6,000 persons are still missing, probably feared dead now, at both the New York City and Washington sites.

In fact, citizens from 37 countries, including Guyana, are victims of this national, or more appropriately, international tragedy. But Americans are no strangers to terrorist acts. In the 1970s, there were about 5,000 acts of terrorism, distributed as follows: 40% in Western Europe, 25% in Latin America, and 10% in the U.S., according to Rubenstein (1987).

In the 1980s, Americans on the mainland learnt of the truck bomb that destroyed hundreds of marines in the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon; the murder of an elderly man aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean Sea; the hijacking of a TWA Airline in Athens where a young soldier was murdered. In 1993, there was the bombing of the World Trade Center, and of course, the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma in 1995. U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998, killing 213 persons in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania.

More recently, in October 2000, the USS Cole in Yemen was bombed, killing 19 persons. And now the September 11 terrorist acts. How should the U.S. Administration respond? Overwhelmingly, Americans in public opinion polls, have demonstrated their desire for retaliatory action. The President and some members of his Cabinet have been vociferous in their calls for retaliatory measures, and have now named Osama bin Laden as their prime suspect. In fact, President Bush now talks of a new war, a war to root out terrorism. In the past, it has been noted that the fight against terrorism was limited by judicial parameters whereby the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would apprehend and, hopefully, bring the culprits to the courts. This strategy has failed.

Today, discussion on eliminating terrorism centers not solely on judicial, but also on military principles. However, what is required today is not a policy solely to make individual terrorists accountable, according to Richard N. Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, but a policy that also holds governments responsible that support terrorism.

A former Secretary of State, George P. Schultz, in galvanising a military strategy to focus on countries and not only on individual terrorists, puts it this way, "We can find out who these people are and then we need to be relentless. You can't mount a systematic attack like this unless you have a place to plan and train. That means a geographic space. So states that harbor terrorists, look out."

The principles of U.S. counter-terrorist policy support this multifaceted approach; but so far the policy has focused excessively on individuals rather than on countries, and also has prioritised the application of the judicial procedure over the military process. These are the principles of U.S. counter-terrorist policy: · Make no concession or deals with terrorists · Bring them to justice for their crimes · Isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism · Bolster the counter-terrorist capabilities of countries willing to work with the U.S.

Pillar in his book TERRORISM AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, argues for counter-terrorist policy to be included as part of a broader foreign policy. Apparently, the change in counter-terrorist policy will incorporate a multifaceted focus, inter alia, on individual terrorists, countries that harbor terrorists, terrorist cells, and a balance between the judicial and military process. It is no surprise, therefore, that while the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has named Osama bin Laden as the prime suspect, he also has talked about addressing bin Laden's Al Qaeda international network.

Why do terrorists do what they do? We first need to understand what terrorism is. Terrorism is the use of violence against random or symbolic targets for the purpose of intimidation and creating fear to achieve political ends. Robertson sees terrorists as fanatics, in that they are absolutely convinced about the righteousness of their cause to the extent that they will see any action justified as long as it serves their cause. He also sees terrorists as people who do not have the means or patience to reach their goals by less violent methods. Without terrorism, according to Robertson, they would be weak and insignificant to pursue an effective challenge to their enemies, thus the need to use terrorism to spread terror and disrupt daily routines in a society.

The culture of a society, too, has an imposing role on terrorism. Culture shapes terrorism in that most conflicts that induce terrorist actions are associated with cultural identity and autonomy. It's tempting to say that the U.S. gets what it deserves because it has its hands in too many countries' affairs, as some people have already indicated. In the final analysis, we have to understand the gravity of the tragedy where over 6,000 human lives may have been lost in this one incident a week ago. What I am saying is that we cannot and must not equate any U.S. involvement in international situations with the September 11 cataclysm.

However, the U.S. involvement in international situations has prompted Ivan Eland, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, to ask whether U.S. intervention overseas breeds terrorism. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said that terrorism is the most significant threat to the U.S. in the 21st century. The statement is significant because today terrorists may have access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The Pentagon's Defense Science Board agreed that a strong correlation exists between U.S., involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S, according to Eland. No empirical data was provided to support the correlation. Also, Eland in a CATO foreign policy briefing said that President Clinton acknowledged this correlation.

Eland suggests that a policy of military restraint internationally may reduce terrorist attacks against the U.S. The U.S., with its vast economic, military, and political resources at its disposal, is best suited to play a significant role to promote stability and democracy globally. Removing this U.S. role as a factor in the global equation may sow the seeds of disorganisation in the international financial institutions and the international market. The problem at hand is terrorism. This immediate malady has to be addressed first prior to seeking out its clinical causes.