The first priority on anyone's mind in such circumstances must be to do everything possible to deal with the victims and their families and to seek to reestablish the national infrastructure—transportation, communications, financial markets—that was also affected by the attack. Doing so could well take months, given the infernos and hundreds of tons of rubble created by the destruction of the largest office buildings in the world. Determining just what happened and why will also take a very long time, and some of our most important questions may never be answered. The one thing we know with certainty about crises of this nature is that much of the initial information that we receive turns out to be wrong and, therefore, that it can be dangerous to draw premature conclusions. Yet even as we wait to find out who was behind the atrocities, we can begin to consider some possible consequences, and at a minimum affirm without hesitation that American political culture, policies, and foreign relations will never be the same again.
The first conclusion that seems apparent is that the global terrorist threat is far more menacing and sophisticated than most people—even those who worry about such things for a living—previously believed. Insiders at American intelligence agencies are already admitting that for all their work on terrorism over the past decade and more, they did not consider the possibility of an attack as audacious, and well executed, as this one. It is hard to overstate the expertise, time, training, and commitment that must have been necessary to execute this operation: getting not just one passenger but four teams of terrorists in place, inside the United States, to simultaneously board four large, fuel-laden aircraft and ruthlessly crash them in symbols of American power. Such a large-scale, coordinated act—which must have required dozens of operators, who somehow managed to keep their plans from becoming known, was not the work of amateurs. Whether it was the Osama bin Laden group—which is suspected of being behind the 1998 coordinated bombings of American embassies in Africa and last year's attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen—or some other group, someone out there not only has incredible hatred for the United States, but a reservoir of dedicated, well-trained soldiers of terrorism.
Given this reality, Tuesday's attacks will also have an important effect on American defense policy, which was already undergoing a top-to-bottom review and the subject of a big budgetary debate in Congress. Some will see the attacks as confirmation of their view that the Bush administration's obsession with missile defense is a misplaced priority, and that far more resources should be devoted to what is called "homeland defense"—better protection of ports, airports and national borders, development of rapid-reaction emergency response teams, more research on vaccines against biological weapons, expanded intelligence capabilities. Others, however, will counter that while such measures are indeed necessary, yesterday's horrors confirm more than ever the need to prepare for the worst. After the unbelievable scenes that people across the country have watched on television over the past 24 hours, what politician will want to announce that he or she does not support measures to stop a possible attempt to annihilate an American city with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile?
One thing that practically all Americans will agree on is the need to step-up efforts to enhance the country's intelligence-gathering capabilities. While America's unparalleled satellite intercept capabilities failed in this case to provide warning that an attack was imminent (as they have in a number of other instances), the case for their indispensability has clearly been strengthened. Europeans who complain about the alleged American network of listening stations called "Echelon" will now be even less likely to persuade their American friends that such efforts should be shut down. Even more important will be the devotion of new resources to "human intelligence"—the spies that are used to infiltrate and report on adversarial foreign governments or organizations.
Since the end of the Cold War, which could always be used to justify certain types of unsavory operations, the US has vastly cut back the resources it devotes to human intelligence, to the point of prohibiting the CIA from keeping thuggish but helpful foreigners on its payroll and placing hiring freezes on parts of the agency. With many Americans, including the President, now talking about "act of war" on the United States, such prohibitions are likely to be revisited, as is the presidential directive banning government-sponsored assassinations.
The attacks will also require Americans to take internal security measures that will make life more difficult in what is probably the most open society in the world. Protected for more than two centuries by two oceans, friendly neighbors, a liberal government, and tremendous military power, Americans have never had to get used to the sorts of restrictions on individual liberty that are commonplace in many other parts of the world, where hijackings and terrorism have been more commonplace. Now our airports will take longer to use, or buildings will be harder to access, and even our skylines will take on a new look. Washingtonians who remember the days when it was possible to drive right up Pennsylvania Avenue to have a look at the White House front lawn will no doubt now never be able to do so again.
There is hardly any question that if we find out who is responsible for these horrific attacks, the United States will retaliate with all its power. If it turns out that Osama bin Laden is in fact the guilty party, as many here believe, it will be necessary to consider an ultimatum to the Taleban leaders demanding an end to the protection the afford him in Afghanistan. The United States must of course keep its sang-froid and avoid the sort of emotional or irrational reactions that would bring it down to the level of its enemies. But at the same time it must spare no effort in the attempt to dismantle a terrorist ring that has proven its willingness and ability to commit the most atrocious of crimes.
It is in any case certain that if the terrorists had any notion that their attacks would push Americans to turn inward in isolation, they will prove badly mistaken. Already, commentators here are talking about a "second Pearl Harbor," and invoking the heroism of the generation that responded to that attack by engaging in the world rather than withdrawing from it. As President Bush put it in his address to the nation the night of the tragedy, America has stood down enemies before, and it will do so this time. The greatest impact of this greatest of tragedies will be to provoke American resolve, rather than retreat.