How to look at the war on terror

President Bush gave a compelling speech Sunday night about the need to redouble our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet his critics continue to blame him for being a “failure” in the war against terrorism, and even some Republicans are urging him to go easy on the terrorists we haven’t yet hunted down.

Some in the administration are faltering under the criticism. There is an increasing disconnect between the strength the President projects and the actions of some members of his team.

Those favoring a weaker stance against terror forget why we haven’t been seriously attacked since September 11, 2001.

Is it because Islamist extremists have stopped hating the United States?

Have the Wahhabis and others stopped plotting against the US and its allies? Have they stopped recruiting for their global jihad?

Are our borders any more secure than they were two years ago?

Are our internal security services significantly stronger than they were two years ago?

Of course not. So why haven’t we been seriously attacked since September 11, 2001?

Because President Bush and his team have aggressively taken the war to the terrorists and their supporters, eliminating them by the thousands, uprooting their networks and showing state sponsors of terror that they risk continuing their sponsorship at their peril. Bush’s policy is working. David Horowitz helps put into perspective how to look at the war on terror in a Sunday column.

Are we likely to be victims to an even more horrific attack in the future? Yes. But the president has sharply reduced the chances. And every time we destroy another terrorist haven or support network, change a terrorist sponsoring regime, eliminate another terrorist cell, and surveil and arrest terrorist suspects abroad – and at home – we reduce those chances even further. Let’s roll.