As each citizen forms an opinion about the U.S. retaliation on the Taliban, ISU political science professors say the attacks did not significantly disable the Taliban or Osama bin Laden and have increased the chance of more retaliatory attacks.

Richard Mansbach, professor of political science, put it simply.

“A defense strategy never works,” he said.

He said the United States bombed 10 empty tents the last time similar attacks were attempted in 1998 after the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa.

“When the government says we hit a military base, that might mean a bunch of log cabins and some tents,” Mansbach said. “It’s a complete misconception the American public has.”

Joel Moses, professor of political science, said this is a different type of war than U.S. citizens are used to.

“There are no targets you can take out,” he said.

The attack’s impact also was diminished since al Qaida expected a military response and had time to prepare, Moses said.

“They knew we were going to respond,” he said. “I assume they moved their most important training into the mountains. What we bombed was probably stripped of relevant materials.”

While the bombings may have not served significant military purposes, they were justified, said Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science.

“In a war, you have to do some things for psychological messages and demonstrate your ability to respond,” he said. “People expect satisfaction and action.”

Sunday’s attacks may have had purposes greater than the psychological effects, Moses said, as the United States had planned air droppings of food and medical supplies for Afghanistan citizens at daylight.

“What we were probably trying to do is to encourage forces in Afghanistan to rise up against leaders who have been helping bin Laden,” he said.

Schmidt said the United States is trying to win over the citizens of Afghanistan with a propaganda war using food and medicine.

“Propaganda material tells them this is not a war against you, but against specific individuals, as we try to get them to join us,” he said.

The retaliation could have undesired effects in unstable Afghanistan, Moses said.

“In attempts to destroy bin Laden and his organization, we’re going to unravel a very difficult situation that Afghanistan has been in for the last four years,” he said. “There are all kinds of uncertain implications, even if we are successful in destroying the Taliban. Implications could spill over in terms of wider regional warfare in the parts of the former Soviet Union, which are extremely corrupt.”

As the retaliatory responses begin, many people are not ruling out the chance for further terrorist attacks.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they carry out a few attacks – probably not related to airplanes since we’ve seen how they do that,” Schmidt said. “But if they can pull it off, they’ll probably try to blow up some things.”

It is difficult to speculate what might be the next targets, Mansbach said.

“Targets are picked on surprise,” he said. “Attacks could be anywhere from domestic to a U.S. base in Germany.”

Bombings, however, are not the only thing on the minds of concerned U.S. citizens.

“Obviously what scares me is what scares everyone else – biological weapons,” Mansbach said.

Schmidt said the Taliban may have the ability to pursue some limited biological attacks, but given the necessary time for a virus to incubate and spread, authorities might not be aware of a biological attack until after the fact.

“We wouldn’t know that they’ve happened for a week later,” he said.

Citizens also should expect the United States to continue its response.

“The U.S. will bomb again and bomb again, since nothing is going to happen,” Mansbach said.

“After a few days of this and nothing happens, pressure is going to build until we’re forced to end them,” he said.

Since this is not a traditional war, the United States will have to employ nontraditional methods of military response, Moses said.

“I’d assume the government has planned a combination of the military dimension along with special operations,” he said. “This is guerrilla warfare. Special operations are going to have to go in and fight against terrorists who know their land. If this gets messy – which it probably will – there are going to be American casualties.”

Mansbach said the United States should focus on the targets it can hit.

“You go after the leaders of countries who did or do support bin Laden until the ruler of whichever country he is living in turns him over,” he said.

Mansbach said he believes this pursuit should include Saddam Hussein.

“We know where Saddam’s mother is,” he said. “We know she received a phone call a day before the hijackings, which makes her a murder accomplice.

“I would have no problem with eliminating that family one by one. It would be very fitting if this president, whose father made the whole problem in the first place by letting Iraq off the hook, would finish him off,” he said.

The so-called new war is going to have a lasting impression upon our country, Mansbach said.

“We have a whole generation who hasn’t just faced war, but any hardship at all,” he said. “I hope this will end individualism and bring the country together.”

Schmidt said the attacks should highlight the value of freedom.

“People could be very self-centered and were worried about little things,” he said. “Until you see how fragile freedom and peace are, you don’t appreciate them.”