It depends on your worldview:

"Terrorists have launched more attacks. They are getting more confident. We must be losing."

"Terrorists have launched more attacks. They are getting more desperate. We must be winning."

I am optimistic myself and think this undeniable upsurge will not be sustained, that this is a sign of success, not failure.

And the world is less save for everyone, Americans included.

Less safe for everyone? Even people in Mongolia or Iceland or Jamaica, for example? Maybe "statisically", if you do some sort of simplistic and meaningless global averaging, rather than taking into consideration local political, economic and social conditions.

I found this interesting:

The aides were told the surge partly reflected an increase in violence in Kashmir, which is claimed by India and Pakistan, and the devotion of more manpower to U.S. monitoring efforts, which resulted in more attacks being counted overall.

So, there's part of the explanation right there in your linked article. Kashmir has been simmering for decades. Increased monitoring counted more incidents. Not exactly due solely to the miscalculations and failings of Bush's War on Terror, as seemingly implied.

You know, the world isn't perfect. Neither are governments. Or people. And some people can always be counted on to find fault. Always. They're perfect at that, at least.