Against terrorism in general? I'm not so sure.

Afghanistan was mostly convenient real estate. The funding came (comes?) from places that haven't been threatened with cessation of ass-kissing, much less attack.

Yeah, we've removed a convenient launch area, and probably significantly raised the rent that the next place will charge. Is that enough? I'm not sure.

Certainly, I'm not worried about a counter-attack. Never was, really. When you always do your best to anihillate an enemy, that enemy need not fear retaliation. You have nothing left to retaliate with.

We may have significantly reduced the level of large-scale organized terrorism. The problem with the rhetoric in this war is that it means we can't win. There will always be evil, and terrorism in certain forms can never be completely eliminated. The McVeighs, like the poor, will always be with us. Even the large-scale state-sponsored form won't go away completely, not without our making it clear that we will attack even if it is not in our overall interests to do so. America may be united, but the Administration isn't, when it comes to questions involving the House of Saud and Israel.

But am I worried? No. Terrorism has never been, and will never be, a significant threat. Our free-enterprising criminals do far more damage in the pursuit of money than terrorists in pursuit of political ends. It gets scary when (as in Brazil) terrorism becomes financialy profitable. But anyway, random stupidity is far more dangerous. How long does it take drunk drivers to kill as many Americans as the hijackers did? Certainly not as long as it took the hijackers to put together the mission.