The American Spectator

“I can tell you that the nations, NATO allies, have already promised more forces than are on the ground actually in Afghanistan, so first of all they should fulfill their promises.”

In short, it’s not that the United States has troops in Iraq, it’s that NATO countries have not sent the troops they promised in the first place.

There are lots of different ways one could measure success in the War on Terror. By Kerry’s own measure — defeating al-Qaeda — the United States is hardly failing.

After five years it is too early to assert with confidence whether, on the whole, the War on Terror is headed for long-term success. But based on the available data, it does not seem farfetched to conclude that so far it has, despite the misjudgments and missteps, made us safer.

Perhaps another president, a Democratic president, would have handled everything better and made us even safer. But to assert that Bush’s policies have endangered us because Osama bin Laden is still at large and al-Qaeda fighters are still running around is not a serious critique. The Bush administration has a long way to go to make us SAFE. That it has not done. But has the War on Terror made America less vulnerable to a massive terrorist attack than it was on September 10, 2001. It sure looks like it.