Theo, here's where I again assert that your logic is flawed.
It's all in what you measure and how.
Your measurements are unsophisticated and ignorantly applied, and that's as politely as I can say it.
You can say that in 7 years there has been no terrorist attack on American soil. That's a measure that says, hey, you know, Theo is right, we've been safe.
On the other hand, if you want to follow your logic
More Americans have been killed in Iraq in the last 5 years than were killed in 9/11. Paranthetically, The number of wounded Americans dwarfs
the number killed, and combined with fatalities in terms of US lives forever changed
, eclipses the damage Al Qaeda did to the US on 9/11. (this war has the highest proportion of amputee wounded since the American civil war, a testament to both enemy tactics and improved medical care).
More Iraqis have been killed in terrorist attacks (not to mention internecine ethnic cleansing) in 5 years than were killed by Saddam between 1988 and 2003 (discounting the first Gulf War casualties, most of which were killed by the coalition, which isn't a judgment statement by me).
More money has been spent fighting in Iraq than was lost to the economic damage of 9/11.
How are these indesputable facts dealt with according to your logic?
Again, if you wish to compare the post-9/11 military world with the World War II campaign:
In the pacific theater, combined offensive operations against the Japanese began in August 1942 with the invasion of the Solomon Island chain. 37 months later, the US controlled the entirety of the Pacific Ocean, the largest single geographic feature on Planet Earth. Japan surrendered.
The combined arms campaign against Iraq began in March 2003. It has been 66 months, almost twice as long, and our government says we are not done. How is this not a failure, by the direct comparison you wish to impose
Comparing the Japanese Interment with torture, again, using your logic (from a quick Wikipedia):
In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". About $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by the U.S. government to surviving internees and their heirs
So you're saying that unreviewable arrest and detention of anyone that the Bush administration deems "dangerous" IS actual leadership? Ronald Reagan would apparently disagree.
And to quote Ben Franklin (perhaps not his, but most commonly attributed):
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Your logic is deeply flawed to me. To me, you have a superimposed view of the world, and you reach beyond the limit of reason to grab facts and interpret them in such a way that confirms your preconceived notion.