With a second consecutive day of strategic air attacks on Afghanistan, the United States is hoping, in part, to make a powerful statement to the world.
However, many observers say the continuation of allied attacks is doing nothing to deter terrorists from striking future targets in the United States.
Laura Donohue, a fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, said that while terrorist retaliation may not happen immediately, more and more people abroad are growing angry with U.S. policy.
"I think it's bringing more people to [the terrorists'] cause," Donohue said. "This is about power. They believe that the United States throws its power around and thinks it can get away with whatever it wants in the international environment."
Penn Political Science Professor Joanne Gowa said she believes that although the attacks might help decrease the overall threat, U.S. military action will not deter terrorists from attacking in the short term.
"I think their goal has always been to damage the [United States] unless and until it exits from the Middle East," Gowa said. "Whether or not we retaliate is not going to change the terrorists' goal."
Gowa is one of many who believe that unless the United States alters policy in the Middle East, the threat of terrorism may never disappear.
The United States has angered many Islamic fundamentalists with its military presence in Mecca, the holy land in the Islamic religion. The country's support of Israeli control of Jerusalem and lack of support for a separate Palestinian state has also caused controversy.
Penn Political Science Professor Stephen Gale, a terrorism expert, cites U.S. policy in the Middle East as a cause for ire among fundamentalists. He said that the initial round of bombings in Afghanistan was cause enough for another terrorist act.
However, he said that the continual air strikes will not necessarily fast track any terrorist plans.
"The fact that they started at all means that there will be an attempt at retaliation," Gale said. "Once we start our military retaliation, the likelihood of an attack is 100 percent."
The length of the attacks on Afghanistan, Gale said, may play a factor in how many terrorist attacks the United States can anticipate. Early reports say that the initial wave of carpet bombings could last throughout the week, with ground assaults to follow.
"The longer this goes on, it may mean that we will have additional attacks," he said. "Osama bin Laden isn't the only game in town."
While Gale believes that another domestic terrorist plot is imminent, others speculate that the focus may shift to vital U.S. interests overseas.
Jim Walsh, a fellow at the John F. Kennedy School for Government at Harvard University, said he believes another terrorist attack would be on a much smaller scale, possibly not even in this country.
"There's a changed context now," Walsh said. "Now we have a heightened sense of awareness. It's going to be more difficult to carry out an attack than it was on September 10."
Walsh also firmly believes that another complex assault on major U.S. targets is not likely because Americans are now on high alert.
"I've been skeptical of the notion that we are going to face wave after wave of terrorism," Walsh said. "In most cases, terrorists follow the paths of least resistance. They use traditional methods and they go for the softest, least protected targets."
Those potential targets may be of a much different nature than those from Sept. 11. While Gale believes that an attack on a political or commercial center is likely, Donohue said that she believes the next incident will be a new breed of attack on a completely different type of target.
Donohue added that she believes the terrorists may wait to strike until Americans feel more secure than they currently do.
"It could be today, it could be tomorrow, it could be in two months," she said. "The point is that we change what we're doing according to a fear. Terrorism plays on that loss of control in many aspects of life."
Preventing a terrorist attack of any kind may be the most difficult task for the U.S. government. Despite the marked increase in security at airports and major political and commercial sites, both Gale and Donohue believe that the necessary measures are not in place to stop another attack before it starts.
Donohue even believes that security measures which could thwart terrorism would compromise American principles.
"It we were able to put those mechanisms in place to prevent it, we wouldn't be the United States," she said.
But Walsh said he believes the fear that is preventing many Americans from traveling and visiting cities like New York is unjustified.
"There are 260 million Americans, and the chances that any one of us is going to be hurt by a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small," Walsh said.
