The American reaction to Black Tuesday's bolt from the blue had been given shape by the media frenzy and jingoistic official rhetoric much before any serious thinking could go into the issues involved. Then, in the haste to set things in black and white, public opinion in crucial countries like Pakistan was alienated by the US government cocking the gun and barking "Friend or foe?"

Similarly, the rush to judgement on Osama Bin Laden drove the Western public into a revenge-frenzy and, simultaneously, pushed Muslim opinion to the other extreme by convincing them that the US sought pre-determined revenge and not justice. The demonising of OBL and vilification of Muslims raised the question whether the US media and government could conceivably eat their spiteful words if fair investigation fixed responsibility elsewhere? Or, if it simply failed to pin the blame on OBL?

Eventually, however, not only the Taliban and other Muslim governments but also saner elements in the Western media, the UN Secretary General and even the NATO asked for evidence to justify the contemplated action. On the issue of evidence, hawks in the US insist that the crime is too horrendous to brook legal niceties. It is war, and not an ordinary criminal investigation, and, hence, the need for immediate and massive retaliation to restore US deterrence.

Others argue that, even for declaring war, the enemy must be established first. This view has found some acceptance in the US government as evident from its willingness to deliver a "white paper" linking OBL's Al-Qaeda organisation to the crime to help friendly governments assuage domestic opinion. But, simultaneously, qualifiers are being added - for example, that the "sources and methods" of gathering this "evidence" will not be revealed.

Without citing the witnesses and proving authenticity, the "evidence" will obviously be no more than an FBI-CIA wish-list. What is really needed to convince a sceptical world is hard evidence that will stand up in a US court. What, after all, sets the "superior Western civilisation" apart from the "barbarians" is its commitment to democracy and the due process. It is this sublime commitment that is now under the international microscope.

But even mundane practicality suggests caution. What if terror returns after OBL and his mythical Al-Qaeda have been terminated? And, what if some other outfit is later found responsible? How, then, will the Muslim world react? More importantly, what will become of the intended deterrent effect if the wrong guys are "taken out" to appease a deliberately inflamed domestic opinion?

These questions have stayed the US hand, and diminished the fears of a massive strike against Afghanistan and, possibly, other Muslim countries. But the problem remains that, despite a massive anti-Muslim inquisition reminiscent of the McCarthy witch-hunt, the US has not so far shown credible evidence.

Of the 19 "suicide hijackers" identified, some are alive and well in the Arab countries. Doubts, naturally, surround the real identities of the others. Of them, the most that can be accepted at present is that they were passengers on the doomed planes. The paper trail they are said to have left behind is too pat, and too stupid for members of a slick outfit needed to carry out the fantastic mission. In any case, this "evidence" does not lead to OBL or Al-Qaeda.

To offset this inadequacy and the absurdity of the world's mightiest power waging war against a puny individual, it is hypothesised that OBL may not have formally okayed the operation but he is the spiritual fountainhead of anti-US terror and his Al-Qaeda is the "corporate umbrella" under which myriad "little companies" operate independently in as many as 60 countries. No evidence, though.

But even if this were so, from a legal standpoint, neither OBL nor Al-Qaeda (whose structure and membership also remain unspecified) can be declared culpable without directly linking them to the knowledge, if not approval, of the crime. All America, after all, knew that the notorious Al Capone was a murderer, racketeer, bootlegger and more. But he wasn't just "taken out." The frustrated authorities sweated patiently until he was finally nailed for tax-evasion. The same judicial principle applies to those responsible for Black Tuesday, with the added need to avoid an error because of the ultra-high international stakes involved.

While sanity has stopped a massive retaliation, a more invidious danger lurks in the open-ended and mostly covert "crusade" launched by President Bush against "radical Islam." He has stressed time and again that much of the action may never be seen. This suggests a carte blanche to the US agencies, an open season on Muslims, a leaf out of Ariel Sharon's book of blood and bigotry - a campaign dirtier than CIA's subversion and murder spree during the Cold War [please recall the assassination of Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Slavadore Allende (replaced by the murderous General Augosto Pinochet), Z A Bhutto, others].

If this wasn't worrying enough, President Bush keeps reminding the Americans that his unique war may not begin or even end with a specific event, it has no time-frame, but victory is assured. Angry and misled as they are, the American people may not yet see the folly of predicting victory in an endless war against an unseen enemy spread across the world. And the cost! Forty billion extra dollars have already been sanctioned for investigation and covert operations to add to the whopping 344 billion dollar defence budget. Where will this end?

Hence, the calls by the Arabs and even NATO for specificity of US objectives. Without known markers, progress cannot be measured or success proclaimed. Such campaigns are the stuff official dreams are made of - limitless budgets, endless time and nothing tangible to evaluate their performance by.

Such an amorphous campaign cannot win UN sanction and would, thus, lack legitimacy. More importantly, given its uncertainty and many potential pitfalls, the allies who do join the US under pressure could find it domestically difficult to stay the course. Also, when the gloves come off, whatever moral pressure there presently is against terrorism will wane as both sides will be playing by the same dirty rules. Losing this moral edge would also mean losing the crucial contest for the hearts and minds of the people, particularly in the Muslim world.

However, the biggest hole in the US response is a stubborn refusal by the government and a bulk of the media to ponder why more and more people are willing to die to cause it pain. Amid thunderous applause in the US Congress, President Bush parroted the superficial Western answer. "Americans are asking: Why do they (the terrorists) hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

While anarchists and anti-capitalists may hate Western democracy, even the radical Muslims have no reason for doing so. In fact, Muslims yearn for democracy to replace the "self-appointed" (and US-anointed) autocracies in their countries. The pervasive Muslim view was articulated by the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in responding to Secretary of State Colin Powell's "arrogant" warning that Iran could not "pick" its "favourite terrorist" and, to join the US-led coalition, it must change the past patterns of "supporting terrorism" (ie Hizbollah, Hamas).

"American officials say 'there are no good or bad terrorists,' but they themselves have double-standards on terrorism. They expect the entire world to help them because their interests demand. Do you ever care about others' interests? These are the characteristics that make America so hated in the world," said Khemenei amid chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."