How should America respond to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11?
This pressing question has been perplexing millions during the past four weeks and last night the Dickey Center's third faculty panel in a series addressing the attacks sought to shed some light upon it.
On one side was Daryl Press, an Assistant Professor of Government specializing in military affairs.
He advocated the aggressive view that the attacks were calculated acts of war on America and deserved to be treated as such.
"The events of Sept. 11 were not accidents. They were the intentional actions of a group with political objectives. We don't know the exact objectives, but that does not matter. They were not isolated attacks. If we don't do something now, we can expect Al- Qaida to attack again."
Press believed that the coming conflict would be a multifaceted two-sided war.
"The new war will consist of a three-pronged strategy combining diplomatic, global policing and military-intelligence efforts aimed at combating terrorism."
Press said that the diplomatic front would serve first to undermine the legitimacy of Al-Qaida and the Taliban, thus making it easier for Arab allies to support America.
Then, a global policing front involving those allies would act to root out and destroy terrorism at its source.
Finally, a military-intelligence front would enable America to find and then kidnap or kill terrorist leaders and topple the Taliban regime.
On the other side was Gene Lyons, a Professor Emeritus of Government and Senior Fellow at the Dickey Center.
He held the relatively restrained position that the U.S. should not act without multilateral consensus and cooperation.
"We cannot and must not do this alone. All objectives require the large-scale cooperative efforts of countries working together. The legitimization of the international coalition is essential to all that must be done."
The preservation of such a fragile coalition would limit America's ability to execute its objectives.
Between the two poles of uni-lateralism and multi-lateralism stood Lynda Boose and William Wohlforth.
Boose, a Professor of English, did not deny the need for action, but stressed the economic plight of the Afghan people and America's own culpability.
Wohlforth, staying closer in line with Press's line of thinking, spoke of America's long-term plan.
"Deterrence is a critical part of the strategy. We must work through states to eliminate terrorism."
Wohlforth said that America must be more willing to accept the economic and military costs of the long haul.
"We cannot walk away from failed states in the future because such states create the conditions that foster terrorism."
Wohlforth said he saw terrorism itself as the ultimate enemy, and not simply Al-Qaida.
"Many of these groups are not appeasable. The U.S. cannot eliminate the root causes of mass suicide. The enemy must be mass terror itself. If bin Laden is eliminated, who thinks that the terror will stop?"
The 300 students, teachers and community members who crowded into Alumni Hall to hear the speakers were pleased with the event.
"I liked it because the opinions were balanced," said one student who stayed afterwards to speak with the panelists.
"It just shows the unity in America, because no matter what your position, no matter what your political viewpoint, you all arrive at the conclusion that something must be done," he continued.
