As it always was in reality, terrorism is now understood to be the dominant issue of the 2004 campaign. The Left tried to make gay "marriage," fake 1970's memos and flu shots seem more important, but most of us have always known that when our lives are at risk, no single issue can match the significance of national security. Our safety shouldn't BE reduced to a campaign issue, but because the Democrats are desperate for a way to attack the President, it is. Just days before the election, Osama bin Laden reared his ugly head to read what sounded like Democrat talking points as penned by Michael Moore. Liberals, of course, voiced their affected outrage that he is still alive after three years, although they're happy enough to use his continued existence as a political bat to swing at President Bush's knees. Ask them how long it took to track down the Unabomber, though, and get a blank stare. It was 18 years from the first of Ted Kaczynski's 16 bomb attacks on 25 May 1978 until his arrest on 3 April 1996. Similarly, it was 7 years between Eric Rudolph's 1996 Olympic bomb attack in Atlanta and his arrest in 2003. Both of those men were living right here in the US, not in a hostile country half a world away, yet it took years to bring them to justice.

What's really important is the way bin Laden's message has changed. Pay attention to such statements as "Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security." Isn't that a far cry from the threats and exhortations he made in February 2003, a month before the Coalition entered Iraq to remove Saddam? In that message, he spoke directly to the terrorists in Iraq (whom the Left insists were not there), telling them that American soldiers were cowards. "Our mujahedeen brothers in Iraq," he said to them, "don't worry about American lies concerning their power and their smart bombs and laser ones." Bin Laden spoke of establishing "the rule of Allah on Earth" and urged his followers to "fight ye against the friends of Satan" in 2003. Now, he begs for a truce, hoping for a badly-needed breathing space in which to regroup, rebuild and recruit. We must not give him that reprieve, especially now that he wants it badly enough to ask.

The War on Terror is not a rhetorical device, as some on the Left have called it for political purposes. Terrorism has certainly never been a "nuisance," either... at least not to the thousands of unsuspecting innocents who have died in terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists over the last quarter-century. It's also not a manhunt for some sort of comic book Super Terrorist. Killing bin Laden or any other single person will not stop global terrorism from being used as a tool by the leaders of rogue nations. It's the only way to fight their more powerful enemies -- like us -- indirectly and without culpability. Not even killing or capturing every member of al-Qaeda would do so, though al-Qaeda's purpose is to coordinate terrorist groups around the world (hence their name, which means "the base"). Other terrorists would fill that void, whatever they call their particular group. The global reach of terrorism is a function of countries working with these groups, and it is they who must ultimately be confronted. They must be convinced to give up their support of terrorism, either through diplomacy (as in Pakistan and Libya) or by force (as in Afghanistan and Iraq). Which path will Syria and Iran choose? The ball is in their courts.

And in the most important way, it's in ours as well. Soon we will choose the way in which we fight terrorism in the future. That's exactly what this election comes down to. John Kerry's dogged reliance on international agreements and law enforcement methods would be a return to the same ineffective methods of dealing with terror we employed all through the 1990's. While ignoring the nations sponsoring terrorism, we wasted our efforts in arresting and prosecuting individual terrorists as though they were common criminals... as though they were no more than the "nuisance," John Kerry claimed they once were. No terrorist attack was ever deterred by the fear of arrest or prosecution. In fact, very few terrorist attacks were prevented by purely law enforcement methods at all. If that method of dealing with terrorism were effective, 9/11 would never have happened.

Although Kerry insists that he would hunt down terrorists "whatever it takes," he believes the War on Terror is limited to al-Qaeda alone, particularly Osama bin Laden. His statements that President Bush "took his eye off the ball" and that Iraq was "a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- al Qaeda" tell us that he would change the way we fight this war. Kerry continues this line of rhetoric despite the fact that General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, flatly refutes it. According to General Franks, "President Bush never 'took his eye off the ball' when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq." Franks also stated, "According to Mr. Kerry, we 'outsourced' the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality." Oddly enough, Kerry praised the strategy of using indigenous troops more familiar with the terrain at the time. In December 2001, Kerry said, "I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on right track," and, "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." Kerry also said, "Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, [with] Saddam Hussein."

It's clear that Afghanistan and Iraq were the first parts of an overall strategy to confront nations that sponsor global terror, a strategy that John Kerry would not energetically pursue. Iran is the primary sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Once both Afghanistan and Iraq are firmly under the control of their own people, our allies will surround Iran. If Iran continues to harbor and sponsor terrorists and build nuclear weapons, we will only need to blockade the Straits of Hormuz -- their main transportation route for oil exports -- for their economy to be in danger of collapse. The only cure for terrorism is democratic reform, and Iran is already on the verge of a democratic revolution. Once Iran gives up its sponsorship of global terror and pursuit of banned weapons, North Korea will have lost all of its main customers for illegal weapons and partners in proliferating nuclear knowledge -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Iran. With no outlet for its only exports, North Korea's economy will also face collapse, unless they fully dismantle their nuclear weapons programs.

That's the path President Bush has put us on -- a path that will lead to a safer world in the long run, though it will not be easy or quick. He told us so right from the beginning, if you were listening. On 20 September 2001, President Bush told the nation:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated... We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.  From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

President Bush is fighting terror with a long-term comprehensive strategy, like a game of chess. John Kerry is planning to fight terrorism like a game of checkers -- make a move, see how your opponent responds, react to his move. Kerry would fight a defensive war, concentrating on reactive strategies like searching incoming ships and increasing funding to those who would respond to the carnage of an attack. While those are good ideas in any case, no amount of money or manpower can possibly search all incoming  ships, nor patrol every inch of our huge borders. No matter how high we build the walls around our country, it would only take one clever or lucky terrorist to debase all the defenses we can create. The only effective way to fight terrorism is to convince the nations that support it to stop. Or else.

The question is, "or else what?" Which candidate has shown that he would use force if necessary to stop rogue nations that support terrorism, even without the approval of France? Our security must come first to our President. Bush would trade our global popularity for safety. Kerry would trade safety for our global popularity. Given the choice, I'd prefer to be safe and unpopular.