The low grades Adele gave President Obama on domestic policy seem a result of two unfortunate tendencies in the Obama Administration. The first was to hand over leadership on domestic issues to Congressional Democrats, which predictably resulted in legislation enfeebled and corrupted by special interests. The second was a surprising ideological rigidity – surprising because Obama campaigned as someone open to bipartisanship. In contrast, these two malevolent tendencies were either absent or much less pronounced in foreign policy, an area in which the President deserves significantly higher marks. This column will focus on one aspect of foreign policy and national defense: counter-terrorism.

The Bush Administration waged a “war” on terrorism as if world public opinion did not matter, an extremely wrong-headed notion. As with struggles against an insurgencies, winning the contest for hearts and minds is the most crucial battle in the fight against Islamist extremism. Common sense suggests that the more people hate the United States in the Islamic World, the more terrorists the Islamic World will produce. According to Pew Research, in almost every corner of the globe, including and especially in Muslim nations, hatred for the United States reached new highs during the Bush years.

There are those who say that the United States will never be loved in certain parts of the world, but this notion only states the obvious and sets up a false dichotomy. It is not a question of whether America will be loved or hated, but rather one about the proportion of people around the world who will variously love and hate the United States. Will the burning hatred of the United States turn every Muslim village into a terrorist factory, or will relatively few radicals form around isolated hate-filled and charismatic Imams? Will the United States have enough friends in the Muslim world to recruit spies and informants, or will we be reduced to observing from satellites, which are almost useless without human intelligence? Will governments in the Middle East feel free to cooperate with the United States, or will anti-American political pressures make anything but highly secretive and / or superficial cooperation impossible?

In the so-called “war” on terror, these questions matter a great deal. Conservatives attacked Obama for his “apology tour.” While one might quibble with some of the language Obama used as he traveled abroad, the tour was absolutely necessary as part of a campaign to repair the image of the United States. Grades are always relative, and in this most important area of restoring American prestige, the Obama Administration deserves an “A” compared to the previous administration’s “F.”

Conservatives, who smell blood in the water politically, have been attacking Obama as weak on terrorism in light of the failed Christmas Day airline bombing. But as Bush’s Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff admitted on CNN, the “system” that failed was the one built up at enormous expense since 2001 by the Bush Administration. Yes, current Secretary Janet Napolitano neglected to review the “system” and for that the Obama Administration takes some responsibility. But it is absurd to blame Obama for a small failed attack while Bush gets credit for “keeping us safe,” with the worst terrorist attack in American history occurring on his watch. Conservatives need to be reminded that they are supposed to believe in bipartisanship in matters of national security.

Obama is also being faulted for trying terrorists in civilian courts and releasing detainees who find their way back onto the battlefield, but these are both Bush-era practices as well. During the Bush years, no detainee was ever tried in military court. The policy seems to be to try the prisoners that the United States has the evidence to convict, and keep the others locked up. Admittedly, the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is problematic, because instead of showcasing American justice, it may feature American interrogation practices, including torture. Just how this will play out remains uncertain.

Probably President Obama’s biggest mistake in the fight against terrorism was to seek s special prosecutor to investigate the CIA for any illegal instances of torture during the Bush years. The President seems to have permitted partisanship to reverse his wiser initial decision not to risk undermining CIA operations with a perceived witch hunt. Spies and undercover operations are America’s first line of defense against terrorists. Leon Panetta, a politician without a strong background in intelligence or military affairs, was probably a poor choice to head the CIA. America needs a powerful, competent and confident CIA now more than ever. Obama tried to reassure his spy agency with a speech he gave at Langley. It would be more reassuring still if he ordered his Attorney General to call off the dogs.

Another factor lowering the Obama Administration’s grade is the lack of sufficient attention to homeland defense, including port, border and industrial security, which represents a continuation of Bush-era negligence. The best defense is a good defense, but the United States remains extremely vulnerable. Homeland defense needs to be reconsidered broadly, thoroughly and urgently.

On offense against terrorism, President Obama has been appropriately aggressive. He has focused American military resources in Afghanistan, where they are most needed. Obama was criticized for delaying the deployment of US forces, but news analysis of Obama’s decision in Afghanistan showed an American President taking a remarkably clear-headed, exhaustive and objective assessment of an enormously complex problem (See this important story: ). One gets the sense that he will approach the failed Flight 253 bombing the same way. Let us hope so.

President Obama’s Grade on Terrorism : B

(To be continued)

Since March of 2009, when the Obama Administration made it known to the Pentagon that Bush Administration language such as “global war on terror” would no longer be used, the Administration has gone to great lengths to be the “anti-Bush” on all matters, especially those involving issues of national security. While credit should be given to the Obama Administration for more troops and more drone attacks in Afghanistan and western Pakistan, the President makes these decisions with great difficulty. President Obama is willing to attack and kill Al Qaeda overseas, but he wants them to have all the rights of U.S. citizens if they are captured in this country. This makes no sense. Is it because of the pressure he is getting from the left wing of his Party? Is it because adoption of Bush Administration policies is repugnant to him? Is it because he would rather be Head-of-State instead of Commander-In-Chief? After all, no matter what you may think of the Bush Administration, it is undeniable that no domestic attacks followed the 9/11 attacks in the remaining seven years of his presidency; and it is possible and even probable that the policies put in place by the Bush Administration and the culture and intensity of the effort to fight the war on terror are what kept us safe.

President Obama has assumed responsibility for the “system failure” that allowed Abdulmutallab to board Northwest flight 253 to Detroit, but he still has given no clear signal that he understands the nature of the threat we face. A lack of leadership on his part in this fight was evident up to and during the Fort Hood massacre and again up to and in the aftermath of the “underpants bomber” attack. The President has filled his plate with massive domestic initiatives and a lot of travel to improve relations with nations around the world. He has been on a crusade of sorts to have all of humanity again love the United States and has relied on his own charisma to achieve this goal. His efforts to set the right tone and commitment as regards the fight with Al Qaeda have been benign at best.

While he took a step in the right direction on Thursday to characterize the threat in a way most Americans believe and understand, we will have to see whether President Obama backs his words with actions. As former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, “The reality is, whether he likes it or not, we are at war with terrorists. They haven’t forgotten it. And if he recognizes we’re at war with terror, a lot of things follow from that. Are we really going to treat it as a war or is it just rhetoric?”

The Obama administration will need to decide whether they want to prosecute “suspects” after terror attacks (as we did in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center) or whether instead they will harness all resources at our nation’s disposal to uncover these plots before they happen, kill the enemy who would harm us, and “protect and defend” the American people. It is not enough to outlast our terrorist adversaries; they must be stopped and destroyed. This cannot be an exercise in criminal justice. It is a matter of national priority. We face huge challenges at home. We have out-of-control government spending and a weak and fragile economy. But none of that really matters, if we are not safe and protected against those who would do us harm.

While an earlier column for CenterMovement.org indicated that former Vice President Cheney needs to be reminded that seriousness of intent does not pivot on semantics, President Obama needs to know that words alone are not sufficient for the effort required to defend the United States and destroy her enemies. The most important job the President has is that of Commander-in-Chief, to defend and protect both the Constitution and the American people. What the Christmas Day attack shows is that this administration has not addressed this threat with the sufficient urgency and commitment it deserves. Critics of the Administration point out that while there is a level of incompetence in the handling of this terrorist attack (as in DHS Secretary Napolitano saying “the system worked”), there is equal concern that the Administration lacks sufficient comprehension of the threat. As Charles Krauthammer notes, “Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York…a trifecta of political correctness and image management.” This is not a serious way to wage war on a group who declared jihad in Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa against the United States. The war was declared not just because we had military bases in Saudi Arabia (which we no longer do) or because of the sanctions against Iraq (which obviously are no longer in place) but because the United States represents “modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical)”, observes Krauthammer. The Obama administration’s desire to fight this battle as a criminal pursuit is fraught with problems. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be “underpants” bomber had reportedly begun to talk about his training and his contacts with Al Qaeda, but stopped once he was “Miranda’ized” by Eric Holder’s Justice Department and “lawyered” up. He now sits in a federal prison facility near Detroit. The United States is not able to extract any further information from him. We do not know whether there are parallel threats underway. The Administration may pat itself on the back and say that our treatment of Abdulmutallab demonstrates how fair and just the American judicial system is, but does anyone really believe that our enemies care?

Our humane treatment of these terrorists on our soil is not going to prevent them from continuing to plot to attack us. Al Qaeda does not care about justice. They don’t care that a law enforcement approach may show America to be “the shining city upon a hill”. If they did, would they have beheaded Daniel Pearl? Would they have shot and hung the contractors on the bridge outside Fallujah, Iraq? Would they continue with attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan that harm not only American military personnel, but also innocent men, women and children? Al Qaeda doesn’t care if America reasserts its moral authority.

Al Qaeda has declared war on the United States and on its values. They mean to destroy us. A war on terrorism will be long. It will be difficult. It is the existential struggle of our time. While President Obama may wish the war is over, and may be shocked and angered by the wake-up call his administration received on Christmas day, the facts are right in front of us. Al Qaeda is still at war with us. And the new front on the war on terror is Yemen.