The September 11 attack on New York and Washington was many things: a barbaric outrage against innocent civilians, a terrorist crime of unimaginable proportions and an unambiguous act of war against the US and all civilised countries. But it was - and is - something else as well: a historic challenge to American international leadership.

The reason is simple. The war against terrorism is one that the US should not be asked to fight alone. No one is secure. And no one can safely stand on the sidelines in the conflict to come. Terrorism is a global threat that demands a global response. By virtue of its military power, economic strength and international pre- eminence, only the US can lead that response. Whether we are speaking about direct military co-operation, law enforcement activities or intensified intelligence sharing, Washington will turn to the international community as it wages war against terrorism.

President George W. Bush is already well on his way to organising an international coalition to prosecute this war. Our traditional allies, led by Britain, have warmed American hearts with their support. And like-minded states in the Middle East and elsewhere have also signalled their willingness to join this undertaking.

At one level, the job of initially assembling an international coalition against terrorism should prove easier for Mr Bush than it did for his father in the Gulf war. Unlike his father, the president need not, for now, worry about domestic public or congressional support. Partisan differences have been largely put aside for the moment.

Mr Bush will also find immediate sympathy for his strategy among important allies in Europe and among freedom-loving nations elsewhere. The sheer horror of the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has galvanised popular opinion throughout much of the world in ways that make it almost impossible for governments to refuse to join in a US-led coalition, even were they inclined to do so.

But at another level - keeping the coalition together and supportive of a continuing response - Mr Bush confronts a much more difficult challenge than the first Bush administration faced. During the Gulf war we had a clear enemy: Iraq, an established state with a conventional army. And we had a goal that, as it turned out, could be achieved with relative speed: Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait. Today the enemy is not just the perpetrators of the attack on the US or even the state or states that support them. It is a system of international terrorism built up over decades. Our adversaries include elusive individuals, shadowy organisations and hidden financial networks.

For an initial strike against the perpetrators of the attack and the country or countries that abetted them, maintaining interna tional support should prove manageable. After that, Mr Bush may expect greater difficulties. As we broaden our effort - as we must - to tackle the international terrorist system as a whole, the US is likely to face an increasingly fractious coalition. Information on terrorist groups is often poor and open to differing interpretations. Some governments - notably moderate Muslim ones - face severe domestic pressures to avoid or limit overt co-operation with the US. The west's enemies in the Muslim world - a minority, though a vocal one - will attempt, wrongly, to paint our war on terrorism as a crusade against Islam.

Harsh trade-offs will emerge as we calculate the direct and indirect consequences of our war. Military action in or near the Gulf, for instance, risks disruption of oil supplies and soaring energy costs. And allies may waver as they count the cost of the casualties, budgetary outlays and lost commercial opportunities.

For these and other reasons we can expect coalition solidarity to erode, much as the international will to isolate Saddam Hussein has dwindled in the decade since the Gulf war.

Does this mean we should approach the war against terrorism with hesitation or half-measures? Far from it. Given that the weapons of choice for the next attack may be chemical or biological, Mr Bush is right to commit the US to an all-out, sustained war. The thousands dead in New York and Washington demand no less. The future security of American citizens and our allies demands no less. So does any hope of amore secure, civilised world for our children and grandchildren. The war against terrorism must be waged with all the material resources and political will at our disposal.

But the difficulties should not be underestimated. Victory will require a proper mix of military might and painstaking diplomacy, public and private, of the most complex sort -a carefully calculated mix of carrot and stick, moral persuasion and blunt talk, veiled threat and indirect pressure. Most importantly, victory will take time. The enemy will not be defeated by a single military strike, however successful, or even a single campaign, however triumphant. This will be a complex, protracted war, fought on military, diplomatic and economic fronts. It will last years, not weeks or months. And it will demand great sacrifices, not only by troops in combat but also by citizens who will finance the war and bear enhanced security measures that provide greater safety at, sadly, some cost to our civil liberties.

Many have compared last week's atrocities to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The two events, separated by half a century, do share important characteristics. Both revealed to Americans their shocking vulnerability. Like Pearl Harbor, the attack of September 2001 has also marked the dramatic beginning of a global conflict.

But Pearl Harbor was more than a terrible blow to America's illusions or the first battle in a bloody war. It was also a summons to American leadership in the world, the awakening of a sleeping giant. The attack on Washington and New York represents a similar summons. And it is a summons to leadership that, with firm presidential guidance, congressional co-operation and the help of friends, the US will answer as it did that earlier call - with sacrifice, dedication and greatness.

The writer served as secretary of state during the first Bush administration

more from FT.com
Further comment & analysis
The war in Afghanistan
Attack on Afghanistan
Attack on terrorism

EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS MOST POPULAR