In eyes of experts, a new age has dawned

As the world reels from the worst terrorist attack in history, observers are predicting a drastic overhaul of America's domestic and international policy.

Specialists in political science, international relations and history say that domestic security will be stepped up in the wake of the attack.

Penn Political Science Professor Stephen Gale, who teaches a popular seminar on terrorism, likened yesterday's events to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.

"An event like this is a turning point," Gale said. "This changed the world for the United States."

According to Gale, America may have to resort to the high level of security under which Israel operates on a daily basis.

"There's only one country that's ever tried to live under this kind of terrorism -- that's Israel," Gale said.

Throughout yesterday, as Americans struggled to comprehend the severity of the terrorist attacks, millions were asking who was responsible for the horrible tragedy.

Although no group or individual has yet claimed responsibility for yesterday's attacks, Political Science Professor Ian Lustick said he believed that it may be the work of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be responsible for the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

"He's got the motive, he's got the capability and he's made the threats," Lustick said. "Anyone who watches crime television knows that knows that you have to look in that direction first."

A follower of bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef, masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Political Science Professor Anne Norton said that the attack will force Americans to question their security.

"When wars were fought by armies, we thought we were pretty safe," Norton said. "But when wars are fought by individuals, we're not safe at all."

She also predicted stronger criticism for Defense Department spending, especially the large allocation of money for a national missile defense system.

"One [response] will say, `You guys dropped the ball -- we're not going throw any more money at you until you've cleaned up your act,'" Norton said. "Another possibility is `You're spending money on the wrong things. You've been spending money on traditional warfare and the infrastructure for traditional warfare. That's not the threat you're going to face.'"

Regardless, military spending will likely increase, she said.

"It is generally true that when there's a threat or an attack, the Pentagon appropriation goes through like a greased pig," Norton said.

Others said that the events will force America to re-evaluate its policy concerning the Middle East, specifically regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict. Lustick said that "eventually, Americans could start to reevaluate [their] relationship with Israel."

"It's such a huge attack that this could actually lead to Americans asking what we're doing over there," Lustick said.

Political Science Professor Joanne Gowa said that if the attacks turn out to be sponsored by bin Laden or other Middle Eastern fundamentalists, it could cause the United States to bolster its support of Israel.

"The only thing that strikes me as topical is that President Bush might see a stronger reason to try to intervene in the conflict in Israel," Gowa said.

Lustick also said that American airports need to adopt higher security measures reminiscent of European airports. Specifically, Lustick predicted the use of elaborate, multiple check points, guards with machine guns and less accessibility to the general public.

Several other experts were hesitant to speculate on the long-term international effects of the attacks until it is confirmed that the attacks were, in fact, carried out by foreign terrorists.

Gowa recalled the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, when the attackers turned out to be American reactionaries.

"First we have to be clear that this is actually an act of foreign terrorism," Gowa said. "Because when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, [foreign terrorism] is what everybody assumed, but it turned out not to be the case."

Furthermore, Gowa said that the effectiveness of security thus far has caused her to question whether the attack was actually masterminded by a foreign terrorist group.

"I've always been surprised that there weren't more successful terrorist attacks in the U.S.," Gowa said. "That always meant to me that we had a very effective system.... That's why it's not completely obvious to me that this attack is foreign-sponsored."

Lustick disagreed with Gowa's assessment of America's preparedness.

"I think this was a humiliation for American intelligence," he said, pointing out that when an alleged Algerian terrorist was recently arrested in Seattle, he gave police the names of top terrorists that "they had never heard of."

Both Gale and Lustick said they were worried about the consequences of a strong American response to the attack.

"If [the response is similar to that of Pearl Harbor], the scary aspect is that much of that response could occur in the United States," Lustick said.

And Gale said that Americans would not tolerate too great a change in their lives or an infringement on their personal rights.

"Most Americans do not want to have their lives changed," Gale said. "The cure may be worse than the problem."

Furthermore, some experts said that Arab Americans may become the victims of misdirected hostility. Political Science Professor Robert Vitalis stressed that many such citizens may have been victims of the attack.

"Many Arab Americans and Muslims were probably in that building," Vitalis said.

Gale recalled the movie The Siege, in which terrorism causes the United States to intern Arab Americans.

But perhaps the strongest question on anyone's mind is how this event could have happened. According to Nagel, Americans have all been overwhelmed by "the sense of fragility and vulnerability."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.