(IPS) feature US opinion has rallied behind President George W. Bush's war against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban regime but remains at odds about the root causes of the terror attacks that triggered Washington's military action and how to address those causes in the future.

These differences recall the initial ''why-do-they-hate-us'' debate, which broke out in the immediate aftermath of the Sept 11 attacks, a debate that was quickly silenced once the administration launched its military campaign in early October last year.

Now that the war in Afghanistan is winding down, however, the question of causes and remedies is re-emerging, although the various sides appear to be talking very much past each other.

At their simplest, the differences on these questions have become the latest battle in the so-called ''culture wars'' which broke out between conservatives and liberals back in the 1960s and most recently flared up over the attempted impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

One side - call it the social workers - argues that Washington's arrogance, insensitivity, and lack of generosity to the victims of poverty and oppression helped create the conditions under which anti-US terrorism could take root and flourish.

To this group, military action must be followed by the implementation of policies and programmes - be they in the form of aid, re-engagement in multilateral institutions, or pressure on Israel or autocratic regimes - that are more responsive to the needs and hopes of the people from whom terrorists are recruited.

''Without in any way excusing indefensible terrorist acts,'' the US Catholic bishops wrote recently, ''we still need to address those conditions of poverty and injustice which are exploited by terrorists.''

Opposition

The opposing side - call it the cowboys for its rough and unilateralist instincts - is utterly scornful of such remedies. ''The notion that wealthy people like (Osama) bin Laden are moved to become terrorists because of poverty is, well, it's a joke on its face,'' according to the cowboys' top administration gunslinger, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Social work and similar Clintonian notions, according to this view, are mostly counter-productive. Indeed, the former president's alleged failure to go to war in a serious way against Islamist extremism, combined with his efforts to reach out to the poor and the oppressed (like the ''permissiveness'' practiced by the parents of the 60's generation), actually encouraged and rewarded terrorism.

It follows from this analysis that the remedy must be precisely the opposite: to be tough and relentless in crushing terrorism. Indeed, in this view, now is the time to carry the ''war on terrorism'' into the heart of the Middle East, if only because the military power put on display in Afghanistan should make clear the fearsome consequences of taking on the United States.

''What talks in the region? Power,'' wrote cowboy cheerleader and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post Friday.

''The elementary truth that seems to elude the experts again and again,'' Krauthammer wrote last month, ''is that power is its own reward.

''Victory changes everything, psychology above all. The psychology in the region is now one of fear and deep respect for American power,'' he added. ''Now is the time to use it to deter, defeat or destroy the other regimes in the area that are host to radical Islamic terrorism.''

Hardline views

Although extreme, Krauthammer's view is close to that of the hard-liners clustered around Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, including Wolfowitz, whose influence in the Bush administration has clearly risen as a result of the successful prosecution of the war.

This worries the social workers. While reluctant to criticise Rumsfeld' s military campaign, they have stressed at every opportunity that Washington cannot win the ''war against terrorism'' by threats and military means alone.

None other than the top military commander of Washington's closest ally in the war, British Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, made the same point forcefully in a widely noted speech in London three weeks ago. Boyce warned that a ''single-minded aim'' of destroying the Taliban and al-Qaeda with a ''hi-tech, Wild West'' campaign was not enough to win ''hearts and minds'' in the Arab world, whence the terrorists came.

Britain's participation in the debate has bolstered the social workers. They see Secretary of State Colin Powell as their lone representative within the administration.

They have rallied behind efforts by Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, to promote a global ''Marshall Plan'' - the development strategy used by the United States to rebuild Europe after World War II as a bulwark against the expansion of Communist influence. The new plan would double official development aid to the developing world over the next 15 years and channel it to key poverty fighting sectors, such as health and education.

No interest

The US administration showed no interest at all for the idea when Brown visited Washington three weeks ago but less hawkish columnists and some lawmakers have seized on it as something that deserves serious consideration.

''This is only in small part a military mission,'' wrote Gerald Seib, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, about the war against terrorism this week. ''The more important parts may be diplomatic, political and economic, just as after World War II.''

'''In the 1940s, the threat to be contained was communism. Today, it is a radical version of Islam preaching that the West and the US in particular are the source of the world's problems,'' according to Seib.

While Brown and others have in mind a global effort to reduce poverty and inequality, and not one confined to the Islamic world as Seib suggests, many on the social-work side argue that economic aid is not enough to deal with the grievances that spawned the terrorists of al-Qaeda.

While poverty and inequality, according to Shibley Telhami, an analyst at the Brookings Institution here, may be factors that attract recruits to terrorism, ''humiliation and hopelessness'' are more fundamental spurs.

''If we spend a fraction of the energies we now use on the military campaign to address the political sources of humiliation and hopelessness, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, we would stand a far better chance of winning,'' Telhami wrote this week.

''Although I see the terror suppliers on the defensive today,'' he added in an implicit warning to the cowboys, ''public humiliation and helplessness in the Middle East are on the increase".