The unprecedented attacks on that beautiful fall day one year ago were a transformational event. America is no longer a city on a hill. Stripped of our sense of inviolability, we quickly found ourselves at war with Afghanistan. Now we find ourselves on the verge of a war on Iraq that threatens, say analysts, to fan the flames of retaliation - initiating a wildfire of violence emanating from an already volatile region.

President Bush will appear before the United Nations on September 12 to outline U.S. strategy and justifications for a second invasion of Iraq. The White House believes that an attack in the vein of "anticipatory self-defense" is necessary to halt Iraq's likely - but unverified - buildup of biological and chemical weapons and possible - but unsubstantiated - links to terrorist networks.

Between remembrance and reaction, many are questioning the march to move on Iraq while the success of efforts to capture the masterminds of September 11 remain dubious:

• The Taliban was disbanded, yet two-thirds of al-Qaeda leadership remains free.
  
  
• Bin Laden's whereabouts remain a mystery - with intense speculation as to whether he is even alive.
  
  
• Although met with early success, the freezing of al-Qaeda assets has come to nearly a standstill.
  
  
• The anthrax perpetrator remains at large.

Terrorism, say experts, is built on a foundation of civil decay, social despair, unresponsive governance, and political disaffection. To stem the tide of terrorism, they contend, these problems must be addressed.

Will pre-emptive military action provoke the very violence it is meant to prevent? Is it fruitful to fight violence with violence, or are there more effective ways to destroy the foundations on which terrorism is built? What is the best way of dealing with nations who hold weapons of mass destruction?