"[The new terrorist paradigm is] one in which people think they're fighting a war, and it's a war between the strong and the weak. The weaker side is rebelling and it understands that there's no way to defeat the stronger side head on. So it exploits the weaknesses of the stronger side. They do it through terror. They don't want to play on the standard military playing field because they know they'll get their butts kicked. So they resort to terrorism and guerrilla tactics. And they see what they do as strategic."

"I believe that they assume that the resolve of the U.S. is weak and that they could force the U.S. to bow out, to withdraw much as the Viet Cong got us to withdraw from Vietnam. Only in very extreme cases is the violence an end in itself, but for them the goal is so big that they just want to do as much damage as they can."

The Seattle Times Opinion Page America under attack

"This terrorism will come to naught. As another enemy learned a generation ago, a sleeping giant has been roused.

Those who undertook this murderous plot no doubt watched their well-coordinated assault unfold on that ubiquitous global common denominator, CNN. Their cheers will evaporate into the ether.

They are gravely mistaken if they assume the United States government will not respond with a swift, sure and punishing response of its own."

John F. Kennedy School of Government Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy

"Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after." The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after." Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.

Using imagination, we hope now to find some of the political will that we know would be there later, "after," because this nation prefers prevention to funereal reconstruction. When this threat becomes clear the President must be in a position to activate extraordinary capabilities."