What's the right US response?

"The issue now is, what is a proportionate military response to something like this?" asks Rep. Jane Harman (D) of Calif., a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Moreover, US officials know that even a proportionate military response can bring further risks.

"You target those governments that harbor terrorists, and then prepare yourself for a protracted conflict," warns Rep. Richard Neal (D) of Mass. "There are embassies around the globe that have never been terribly protected. So, there's a risk for Americans."

Like Mr. Bremer, many lawmakers believe that any military response should be robust and thorough - including Afghan government targets, if bin Laden is culpable and if that country succored him. Sen. Bob Graham, (D) of Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, goes as far as to suggest that this country's self-imposed ban on assassinations "ought to be revisited." But other experts see this as the route to further counterattacks, including those against innocent civilians - as some say is now happening in the Middle East, where Israel has specifically targeted certain Palestinian leaders.

"As a counterterrorist technique, assassination is not only immoral, but ineffective in accomplishing its stated goal: the deterrence of terrorism," Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, wrote in The Washington Post recently. "And it comes back to haunt the perpetrators in ways they never expected."

To some experts, the main response needs to be more diplomatic than military.

"The most constructive response for the president and government would be to become much more engaged in the Middle East," says Emilio Viano, a terrorism expert at American University in Washington.

"The region has been neglected," he adds, "and to the extent we have been involved, it has been increasingly interpreted as acting on the side of Israel."

"There is tremendous rage among Palestinians, and that has fueled the fires of fundamentalism," explains Professor Viano. "It would be more constructive to go to the root of all of this, and that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Going to the root of a problem that has simmered - and often flared - for decades and generations is difficult under far simpler circumstances than American now finds itself confronting.

And a military response, whether it is a quick retaliation or a protracted response meant to permanently change the geopolitical landscape, nonetheless brings with it the questions of balancing a nation's fundamental values.

"We have to be true to our principles, take into account the fact that people will be vulnerable and without offense and themselves at risk," says former CIA and FBI director William Webster. "We should avoid doing to them what they did to us, which is to take innocent lives."

Staff writers Gail Chaddock and Howard LaFranchi in Washington contributed to this report.

Page: 1 | 2