Seems the press is all upset about Louis Freeh's book which takes Clinton to task for his failure to pursue the terrorists responsible for the Khobar Towers attack. Funny, I don't recall the press being to critical when Freeh was pursuing gun control legislation and harassing gun owners with a passion.

I've mixed emotions about this. I never much cared for Louis Freeh. I certainly don't want to play gotcha anymore. In fact, it is well documented that Clinton was asleep at the wheel and allowed al Qaeda to grow and think we'd never respond to an attack. But what does all that accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Let the left live in the past, glorify the Clintons, dream of days gone by. For me, I frankly don't care.

Look, the left, along with the democratic party doesn't think we're at war. Nothing that is said or done is going to change that. Nothing Louis Freeh says is going to make them go "Oh, really, we're at war. Damn, we better win this thing." So, for the left, please, keep living in the past. For the right, drop the Clinton thing already.

Obsession is a perfume.

In November, 1943, on an island few today can find on a map, and fewer still have even heard of, the US Marines launched the first true amphibious operation against a fortified defense. The Japanese commander said of Betio Island in the Tarawa Atoll, "A million men in one thousand years could not take the island." We know that now that it took one Marine division 76 hours.

But there is a reason why the Marines refer to it as "Bloody Tarawa". And there is a reason why it is significant even today.

Operatin Galvanic started as bad as anyone could imagine. Joseph Alexander's magnificant book Utmost Savagery is a must read for any budding military historian. We discover that the maps the commanders relied upon were inaccurate and years old. We guessed completely wrong on the tides. We completely missed the reef that lay several hundred yards offshore. We didn't have enough amtraks, landing craft able to cross the reef, and those that we did, were mostly shot up and useless, unable to return for more Marines.

Most Marines "landed" on the reef, their Higgins landing craft stuck, unable to cross it. From there, they waded in neck deep water, forcing their way through machine gun fire, artillery, and snipers. Few made it to shore unscathed. By the night of D-Day, we held a tenuous, and very perilous, 800 yard beachhead. Save for the fact that the preinvasion bombardment severed the communications lines between the commander, the Marines would very have been driven off the island by night counterattack. Otherwise, the bombardment did little but warn the enemy we were on our way.

The decision to land more troops or pull out was being debated when a call went out to Col. Shoup, shore commander. Shoup responded with these terse yet brilliant words: "Casualties: many. Percentage dead: unknown. Combat efficiency: we are winning."

Jump ahead to today, the War on Terror, an entirely different war. However, what can we conclude? Casualties: far fewer than predicted. Percentage dead: very low. Combat efficiency: we are winning.

Now, any casualty is painful, and yet if refuse to bear any, we will suffer very many. The few we refused to accept, be it 1991, 1993, 1998, or 2000, led directly to the 3000 we suffered on Sept. 11. And we need not forget that 9/11 was not a "Pearl Harbor", an attack to knock us out of the Pacific, or this case, the Middle East. 9/11 was merely one of many attacks, an escalation of the conflict, with many more possibly to come.

A popular refrain among the war's critics is that we are either a) for the hardcore critics, losing or b) for the more "reasonable", that we are creating more terorrists. In both cases, their analysis is that we are no safer.

But what does reality find: From an al Qaeda letter intercepted by US forces:

• al Qaeda's tactics are floundering


• al Qaeda has lost many key leaders


• communication and funding are seriously disrupted


• al Qaeda's goal is to establish the caliphate in Iraq and extend it's influence outward


• al Qaeda faces defeat in Afghanistan

What else do we find, that is not mentioned? No mention is made of UBL, where he's at, what his role is. In fact, we also learn that Iraq is "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era" and that:

The letter also indicates Zawahiri's life in hiding has left him cut off from news and financial support. He asks Zarqawi to provide him more information about operations in Iraq, saying he should know at least as much as the enemy knows, and he even asks Zarqawi to send money.

So, we have an organization which is broke, fractured, on the run, mostly dead, without public support. Yet, we know exactly what their goals are.

Would someone please tell me how exactly we're not safer. Is there not anyone honest enough to acknowledge that al Qaeda always had eyes on the heart of the caliphate. We beat them to the punch.

The truth is that we are winning. And we are winning in a manner greater than anyone could have predicted.

All the ex post facto carping about poor planning and the other assorted critiques only serve to build the egos and offer pseudo-intellectual analysis which is transparent to almost anyone. Ask them this simple question: what war were we ever well prepared for, well planned for, and was well executed? There's a simple answer. None.

Our military history has most often found ourselves underequipped, underprepared, caught by surprise, and severely undermanned. But never have we recovered so well, so fast, altered or strategy, tactics, and plans, and achieved such stunning success in such short time.

Why it often needs repeating, I'll never know. But it does. We are winning. We have not won, and we're still in a long fight. But nothing could be more clear than the most recent desperate plea from Zawahiri. He's losing, badly, and he knows it.

And if he's losing, than yes, we are winning. And we're winning in stunning fashion.