What would you do?

As American forces muster to strike back at terrorism, the British left is ready to oppose military action. Last weekend, Harold Evans, former editor of the Times and the Sunday Times, writing in the Independent on Sunday, threw down a challenge: "To those who dwell on how we got here and what we should not do, I pose the question: what would you do?"

The New Statesman asked prominent opponents of US action to take up Evans's challenge. Here, and on other pages in this week's issue, they give their answers.

A land invasion would be disastrous: if America knows where Bin Laden is, it should take him out.

I accept that US military action is inevitable but, like the New Statesman, I don't believe that it will get to the root of the problem. I'm in favour of the symbolic notion of "dropping food parcels into Afghanistan".

Resolving the Middle East issue and the question of Palestine is crucial; until Palestinians are assured of international justice, the problem of terrorism cannot be solved. International terrorism is related to the nature of American foreign policy, and this must be acknowledged.

I favour an interim response. I think that we need more information in order to get a sense of who the enemy is and how numerous that enemy is before we can decide how best to respond. There is also a conspiracy element to global terrorism, which needs to be overcome before we can address the root causes.

We should not act in the heat of the moment. There's a Mafia phrase that springs to my mind: "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold." I think Bush is way out of his depth in this situation and will need to rely on his advisers very heavily. I only hope they are up to the job. I do think Bush has overreacted completely. Does he have the moral authority to provide clear evidence of guilt? I have a problem with politicians who create new terms to suit the situation. I keep hearing Blair talking of "mass terrorism" as if the British population has never felt the effects of terrorism in their own country. This hypocritical application of the evils of terrorism makes the US appear as an innocent victim. Looking at the situation in Afghanistan, I've got three letters for you - SAS.

You must know your enemy to get him. To this end, all evidence on Bin Laden and his network must be made public.

I do not believe that military action will achieve anything. It might frighten the Taliban, but it will be a waste of money. Terrorism will go on whatever happens - look at the situation in Northern Ireland, where terrorism has continued for decades, despite everything. There is no real solution to the problem, and that is why there are so few ideas emanating from the left. I feel the most important thing to do now is to improve our intelligence networks and the secret service.

I fully support the New Statesman's stance concerning Bush's current tactics in his "war on terrorism". Instead of war, the rule of law should be used to bring the perpetrators to trial.

Most importantly, we need to learn long-term lessons about the causes of terrorism. The effects of global inequality must be acknowledged. The world must pull together and take joint responsibility for the current crisis. The west should take the blame for pushing people in third world countries to the end of their tether.

I agree that terrorism must be stopped in the long run, but that includes US-sponsored terrorism. I would change British foreign policy to stop backing the US and would lift US-imposed sanctions on Iraq. If this issue is about upholding our democratic values, then our only choice would be to use democracy and the rule of law against terrorists. I would take them to court.

Bin Laden's attack should not be related to a wider issue of global terrorism - though the present crisis does offer a good opportunity to talk about global inequality and the causes of terrorism.

This attack was a criminal attack that needs to be responded to as such. I do not condemn military action, but I believe it must not be open-ended. Instead, it must be a carefully defined and limited attack.

We risk creating a thousand more suicidal madmen and destabilising Pakistan to such an extent that extremists may end up in control of its nuclear weapons. The prize is that we may destroy the terrorist networks and create a safer world. Can anyone make a realistic evaluation of the risk? Does anyone know what the next step is if the attacks go wrong? Probably not.

First, the United Nations must ratify the ten different terrorist conventions that have previously been vetoed by the United States. Second, we should try Osama Bin Laden in absentia in an international court, or even set up an ad-hoc court pending the start of international criminal court proceedings. I think we need to pursue Bin Laden in different ways: for example, by blocking communications to Afghanistan. I would even go as far as combing through bank accounts across the world and freezing anything suspicious.

I do not think there is sufficient evidence to single out Bin Laden. For all we know, it could well be the Iraqis. I would support the introduction of ID cards in Britain as one method of combatting foreign terrorists. I realise that somebody has to be blamed for these attacks and, although it cannot be justified easily, I feel that someone will have to be shot to appease the American people. Given the circumstances, I'm not against this shooting - but I feel we need to have more evidence. How well informed are Bush and Blair? Is their intelligence really sufficient to justify their retaliatory actions?

Jumping up and down waving sabres won't resolve a thing. There has to be a political solution to this, with America's attitude to Israel, Palestine and Middle East oil at the centre. America must take a more reasonable stand over Israel - only this will end Muslim distress.

There has to be a complete re-evaluation of how the world ticks. These people are in no way isolated freaks: their attacks met with considerable acclaim in many areas across the Middle East and Asia, and this must be addressed.

We have been shown to be out of touch with countries such as Afghanistan and we need to re-engage, not just with ruling elites but with the people who live in these countries. We must start by trying to understand what the consequences of globalisation really are. Military action alone is no solution.

Military action is inevitable, but there is a danger that an invasion could fail to topple the Taliban but succeed in toppling the Pakistani government. The key point is to seek economic improvement and development of the area. I think the symbolic idea of foreign aid brought into the region is particularly important.

The best tactic would be a token "special forces" type of attack, whilst simultaneously concentrating on building an improved network of worldwide security. We should also require Ariel Sharon to show restraint in the Middle East.

Bombing Afghanistan is not the answer. What is needed is a long-term plan to use the wealth of the west to put an end to the global inequalities that breed terrorism.

We must recognise the suffering of the Afghans. Bin Laden is supported precisely because he provides so much aid to impoverished countries such as the Sudan.

It is impossible to declare war on terrorism without eliminating its causes. I believe injustice in the Middle East is at the root of the international terrorism problem. The west should produce a new foreign policy in relation to the Middle East and fully engage with it.

This is a question of international justice, not justice for America, therefore I feel that an international court - either one set up on an ad-hoc basis or the proposed criminal court - should be involved. It is right that the United States has a duty to protect its citizens, just like any other country, but it has not fully explored the options of criminal, civil intelligence and military action. I am opposed to military action.

There are urgent things that need to be done, such as relieving suffering and responding to Afghan refugees. I believe that all restrictions on Afghan immigration should be lifted.

As far as I am concerned, the "war on terrorism" sounds depressingly like the so-called "war on drugs", and will prove to be just as futile. The Taliban are bastards, but there is a difference between having a religion when you are comfortable and rich, and when you are poor, miserable and starving. I think there is a need to remove the misery and fanaticism in the Middle East through education from the west. I believe that the west has responsibility to these people - we can't just lock up Palestinians for years and expect life to go on as normal. Concerning Bush's idea of "teaching these people a lesson", we all need to learn that the world does not have to be a place where half the population are starving and miserable, and that there are consequences when that is the case.

I question whether military action will benefit anyone. It is time instead for a dignified response - and time to bang a few political heads together. In the Middle East, we need to restrict Israel's settlements. Although we need a secure Israel, we must also have a Palestine that can hold its head up among other nations. The need to end foreign occupation of territory is a global issue. The United States is full of angry militants at present. Britain should be a caring cousin to the US, cautious and objective in any response it gives.

Research by Julia Margo and Erica Goldsmith