While the nation recovers from the terrorist tragedies, U.S. leaders weigh their options in search of an answer to the resounding question – what now?

James Hutter, chairman and associate professor of political science, said the country has three courses it could choose.

“One option is to do nothing, which we have done in the past,” he said. “The next option is to proceed, as President Bush is, by using a combined approach of military and non-military activities. The third option is air war.”

Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science, said the United States should have done something to stop terrorism long ago.

“We have been cowardly in dealing with these problems in the past,” he said.

Hutter said using both military and non-military actions could include airstrikes, special operations forces on the ground, freezing bank accounts, seeking the cooperation of foreign governments and stopping businesses that are generating money to support terrorist acts.

The combined approach Bush is advocating will target specific terrorist organizations and the people involved, he said.

“The financial effort is the most effective response to take,” Hutter said.

Trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East is the next effective action because “public opinion is up for grabs right now,” he said.

Hutter said the least effective action for the United States to take would be to use “carpet bombing,” in which many planes drop bombs over a small area with no targets in mind.

Schmidt said the major political parties forming a government of national unity should help the country.

“I don’t see any differences between the views of Republicans and Democrats on the military actions that should be taken,” he said.

The main difference between the two parties is disagreements about how much authorization to give the government with security issues, Schmidt said.

“Democrats don’t want to give too much authority to the government,” he said. “It could potentially violate Americans’ right to privacy.”

Ray Dearin, professor of English and political science, said force could be an option the country could use.

“We have to address the sources of terrorism, which will probably require military action,” he said.

Dearin said the military is focusing on Afghanistan, which “is fairly well isolated at this point.”

Melissa McArthur, chairwoman for the ISU Republicans, said the United States needs to use military action, but government officials should be selective with the information released to the public.

“Any terrorist or country can get on the news and see what actions we are taking,” said McArthur, sophomore in pre-business. “Some things are better to be kept secret until they happen.”

U.S. leaders should be careful when deciding what response to take, said Brian Anderson, president of the Iowa State Libertarians.

“We should punish those responsible for initiating force and retaliate with force, but not against the average citizen,” said Anderson, junior in horticulture.

Matt Denner, president of the ISU Greens and freshman in liberal arts and sciences, said the party does not think military force is the answer.

“We believe military retaliation will lead to disaster for the United States military and would stand against the American ideal of peaceful coexistence,” he said.

Molly Scherrman, president of the ISU Democrats, said something needs to be done to prevent these things from happening again.

“We need to be sure to plan things out very well and not move too fast,” said Scherrman, junior in psychology.