As certain as terror has struck at home, it is equally certain that America will retaliate. If recent reports are to be believed, all evidence points toward Osama bin Laden as the culprit for the Sept. 11 attacks. Days after the attack, the Bush administration had already formulated both short and long-term policies. These should be called into question.

In the short term, Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that an attack on the terrorist ?network? is in order. Said Powell, ?We will go after that group, that network and those who have harbored, supported and aided that network, to rip that network up.? Powell never defines what he expects the ?network? to comprise. The resources used to coordinate the attacks were sparse. A small number of zealots armed with knives is hardly indicative of a sophisticated ?network.? True, bin Laden allegedly has over 3,000 followers, but no military by any standard. He has few military targets for our bombs to destroy. Even if the majority of his organization were destroyed, he would likely still have the resources to carry out an attack on the scale of last week?s.Knowing that conventional warfare cannot be waged against terrorist groups like bin Laden?s, policy will also be directed toward governments that harbor them. At best, this will be a policy change that could effectively drive terrorists underground. At worst, it will be a frustrating and draining series of limited warfare, especially if ground troops are involved. In the very least, Afghanistan should be retaliated against immediately if their guest bin Laden is found responsible. However, this is a far more complex situation than it seems.

Afghanistan is a country in ruin. The $20 billion dollar loss of the World Trade Center is roughly the size of the Afghan Gross Domestic Product. In fact, it has no uniform government or code of laws that most Americans would understand. The Taliban government has seized most of the country, but there is still fighting among competing factions, according to the Central Intelligence Agency World Fact book. A U.S. attack would have to make distinctions among these diverse groups. A ground war would be further complicated by the country?s rugged terrain. With backing from its NATO allies, America will inevitably attack. Hopefully the military will take the Afghan political situation into account. If the attack is to be effective, and go beyond symbolism, this complexity must be realized.

President George W. Bush has vowed that terrorism will be the foreign policy focus for the duration of his administration. He has dubbed last week?s events as the ?first war of the 2lst century.? He has also gone on to say that American action will not be a mere retaliation, but a long campaign against all terrorist groups. This could prove to limit terrorism by driving the culprits further into hiding, and could also deter governments from harboring the terrorists. However, despite the massive cost of such a campaign, there is simply no way to end terrorism. America will never be watertight.

The government should begin questioning why terrorists are willing to go to such extremes, rather then trying to subdue them. It is reasonable to claim that the attacks were against American policy toward the Middle East rather than America itself. American policy has resulted in a variety of disasters that have at least contributed to that region?s struggles with modernization. Wrote Robert Fisk in The Nation, ?There will be, inevitably, and quite immorally, an attempt to obscure the historical wrongs and injustices that lie behind the firestorms.? These injustices include the CIA overthrow of Iran?s most progressive regime in its history in 1953; sanctions that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; and the bank rolling of Israeli policies which have left the Palestinians as occupied refugees. It?s no surprise that Palestinians were dancing in the streets upon word of the attack. A less forceful policy toward the Middle East should be considered.

However, such a change would be understandably difficult, considering America?s vital oil interests in the region. Whatever route America decides to take in the region, it should also look at its policies as a whole. Osama bin Laden, like our last main adversary Saddam Hussein, has a history of being helped by the United States. He received training directly from the CIA, according to the British Broadcasting Company. His militant Jihad was also backed with American dollars during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Since World War II, America has dealt with several brutal dictators and criminals in order to accomplish its short-term objectives. I hope we have learned our lesson.

Joshua K. Leon is opinion editor of the The State Hornet and a journalism major. He can be reached for any questions, comments or suggestions at [email protected].