It is important to also look at the perpetrators less visceral, but more important messages: that they repudiate the notion of accountability, reject the legitimacy of agreements designed to constrain disputes or conflicts, and have only contempt for the conventions of humanitarian principles in all their forms. We are reminded that no matter what the specific group or its espoused goals, the first principle of the terrorist's behaviors is to repudiate the rule of law that is the hallmark of civilized society.

Those in military and civilian organizations whose lives and professions are guided by the principles of humanity might well ask if anyone pays attention to such standards anymore. The question is understandable, but it probably reflects more despair than cynicism. In fact, the carnage of the last dozen years might well be conceptualized as nothing more than protracted acts of terrorism. It is what we [the authors] call Über-Terrorism. We have coined this word to describe acts of barbarism that not only take lives and destroy property, but that actively pursue, in the long term, nothing less than cultural expungement. Examples are chillingly easy to find; one has only to reflect on images of Mozambique, Somalia, Rwanda, and the fratricidal lunacy of the former Yugoslavia. However diverse the setting or the history of the conflict (and in the final analysis, it is always about history) all of them bear one essential trait in common: the utter rejection of established legal principles of conduct.

And now the Über-Terrorism has come to us, not simply as a single apocalyptic assault, but as the initial attack on the very social systems and cultural institutions that define our nation and solidify our shared collective consciousness.

We grieve many losses; some are things we have no more, some are things that might have been, but now will never be. We mourn the loss of friends and loved ones, our sense of security, economic opportunity, and for the moment perhaps, happiness itself. It is also true that for all of the outrage, there has also been a reassuring measure of outreach. Outreach provides reassurance of the basic goodness of humanity. We see it in not only in the selflessness of the emergency responders, but in the earnest support and sympathy from foreign nations and in the touching, simple gestures of comfort from strangers.

Clearly, we must respond, and respond strongly. The actions we take (or fail to take) now will have a dramatic impact on the children who will lead us into the future. In this case our response will involve a new kind of war: a concerted and persistent military, diplomatic, economic and social action. Anything less would trivialize our loss and suffering. The question becomes how much is enough? It cannot simply be a matter of "getting even ". The institutionalization of revenge is both inadequate and inappropriate; national policy based on revenge risks the destruction of society. The practical solution is to attack the anarchy itself through the application of order. It is essential that civil societies come together to reinforce the value of outreach over outrage. The issue is not only the rejection of revenge; it is the reassertion of the rule of law, and that applies to the Law of Armed Conflict as well.

Our challenge then, is to find a way to transform our outrage through a commitment to the application of appropriate law. For all its seeming complexity, the notion of the rule of law is stunningly simple: it is the systematic application of accountability based on agreed standards; it is an alternative to anarchy.

Thomas F. Ditzler, PhD, MA, FRIPH, is Director of Research, Department of Psychiatry at Tripler Army Medical Center and a training advisor for the Center of Excellence. COL Wayne B. Batzer, MC, is Chief, Chemical Addiction Treatment Service, Tripler Army Medical Center