We are at war with a particular group of people whose primary method of attack is deliberate destruction of non-combatants.

An attack in the U.S. does not mean we have lost the war. It means that there's a war going on. We didn't start it.

God knows enough people would leap on a subway bomb as a sign of total U.S. failure. The Katrina political response by the media and Democrats was originally designed as a response for a terror attack, and was adapted to the storm. Wait until a bomb blows up on a subway if you want to see political screaming and leaping.

On the other hand, the lack of such attacks, while quite surprising to me, does not mean that we have won, either. It could be seen to indicate that we are disrupting the terror system to the point where they can't carry off an attack, but that idea has always bothered me, considering the few resources and organization low-level attacks would require. I have no real idea what's taking them so long. It's like being on a WWII battlefield, and wondering why all the soldiers over on the other side of the lines haven't actually shot at you yet. Hell, we haven't even had an attack on an overseas U.S. target, other than Iraq.

The rational response to attacks or potential attacks in the U.S. is to see them as part of the war, and move on from there. There should be no more unwarranted defeatism attached to it than there should be unwarranted triumph attached to the lack of such attacks.

But I suspect rationality isn't going to figure prominently in the coverage when it happens. Note the differing responses of Spain and Britain to their attacks.