It did not take an anniversary to remind us of the horrors of terrorism. The terrorists decided to take up that responsibility. There have been at least 30 major terrorist strikes around the world since that fateful day in September 2001, when a bunch of crazed hijackers made history by attacking the United States. The worst have since come in recent days. As Russia, and now Indonesia, mourn the deaths of innocent lives, the world must once again stand up and take account of its success and failures in eradicating this scourge of terrorism.

Since 11 September, terrorist actions have taken human tragedy to greater proportions, and in doing so, have put civil society on notice. Hostage takings and bombings have long been used by armed groups to win world attention, but employing such tactics to shake the confidence of people or to provoke large scale violence is an entirely new ball game. Were the blasts in Jakarta timed to influence the outcome of the polls? Chechen militants who took hundreds of children as hostages in Beslan demanded the release of their comrades in Ingushetia but were they actually plotting to reignite a dormant civil war? The answers to these questions may never be conclusively known but the possibility is real.

Governments have typically responded to such outrages by vowing to bring those responsible to justice. In other words they have met force with force. A grieving Russia has reserved the right to strike terrorist bases anywhere in the world, borrowing from the doctrine of pre-emptive action that President Bush first articulated three years ago. Now expect a tough line from Jakarta as well. Yes, terrorists deserve a tough response. But that by itself will not win the war on terror. Critics find it easy to trace the root cause of terrorism to a misdirected state policy. Violence, they say, only breeds more violence. Perhaps. State sanctioned crackdowns have in the past produced mass resentment and triggered bloody conflicts. Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan are examples. But it is also true that security clampdowns have disrupted terrorist networks and restored a sense of public security. Israel is a particularly good case study. No doubt that without adequate safeguards, sweeping police powers can lead to abuse. But, as Indonesia demonstrates, in the absence of enhanced executive authority preventing terrorist acts becomes difficult. Therefore, what is required is a robust counter terrorism strategy that has the active support of civil society. Of course, easier said than done.

Terrorism will have to be fought at two separate levels. On a national level, governments would have to enlist the support of all sections of the society in the fight against terror, particularly those most vulnerable to the appeal of extremist ideology. Terrorism is now a part of our everyday life. It affects our world view; it influences our holiday decisions; it even affects the value of our investments. And although the exposure of terrorism to the everyday life of an individual is very insignificant, the danger it poses to the society is not. Terrorism can therefore no longer remain the preserve of law enforcement agencies, academics and policy makers alone. It is about time that the subject becomes a part of public debate and understanding. On an international level, terrorism would have to be fought within the rules, norms and institutions of what Professor Samuel Makinda calls "global governance". That is because terrorism thrives in an environment of anarchy, anger and instability. The war on terror has suffered at least one serious setback in Iraq with the US invoking its right to pre-emptive action. Now, with Russia threatening to go it alone, are we prepared for another grievous blow?