01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, October 31, 2004

A dozen years ago, people were wondering what the post-Cold War world would be like. Was this the "end of history," as one theorist suggested? How big would the "peace dividend" be, and how could we spend it? Now that the Soviet Union was history, others observed, Americans had lost interest in foreign affairs; it was time to dismantle the institutions of the Cold War -- NATO, the CIA, Voice of America -- and certainly time to reduce our military establishment.

Then, less than nine months into George W. Bush's presidency, came Sept. 11, 2001. Terrorism, which had been an occasional outrage in previous years, and was largely an abstraction to the average American, struck the United States with ferocity. Almost 3,000 Americans were killed in attacks on four domestic airliners, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. A phenomenon that had largely been confined to the fractious Mideast, European and Asian cities and U.S. diplomatic missions abroad suddenly hit home to every American with savage clarity.

Terrorism is, of course, an ambiguous term. It has been said that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and just ends have sometimes employed terrorist means. But in this particular war against terrorism, there can be no mistaking the purpose of such terrorists as Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- the removal of Western influences from much of the world in order to install a fascist theocracy. In the Mideast, in Spain, in Indonesia, in Afghanistan, and in Russia we have seen what terrorism means, and have heard the defiant words of the terrorists.

Whether one looks at the thousands dead at Ground Zero, the hundreds killed on a train in Madrid, or aid workers beheaded on camera in Iraq, there can be no mistaking the murderous intent of the enemy. In a post-Cold War world of loose nuclear devices, rogue states and an ideology of blood and hatred, the stakes in the war on terrorism could not be higher.

President George W. Bush is not to everyone's taste. He is a proud Texan with an equally proud New England-Ivy League pedigree, a conservative who has dramatically increased federal spending, a plain-spoken man whose candor is a stronger suit than his diplomacy. But from the moment that the first airplane smashed into the World Trade Center, President Bush fully understood the stakes for civilization in the war on terrorism, and has kept his eye resolutely on his mission: the security of the American people, and of those who stand with us in the war against terrorism.

He has made it plain that terrorism will not be defeated quickly or easily, and he has been willing to take huge political risks to try to ensure our safety. For that reason, above all others, we endorse President Bush for re-election.

This is not to say that Sen. John Kerry is an unworthy challenger. He is an intelligent, articulate man who has had many cogent and critical things to say about the Bush administration, some of which we agree with. He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and an experienced member of the U.S. Senate. Some of his positions on domestic issues are considerably closer to ours than are President Bush's.

But on the one issue of our time that transcends all others -- the war against terrorism -- Senator Kerry does not offer a reassuring alternative.

When he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry declared that "any attack will be met with a swift and certain response," and that is the essential difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush. Mr. Kerry is prepared to react to terrorism; Mr. Bush is determined to take the war to the terrorists before they strike at us again.

Beyond that, the president has outlined a vision of reform and democracy in the Mideast, the origin of most international terrorism, that is both audacious and inspiring. Having routed al-Qaida from Afghanistan, and struck down the pitiless Taliban regime there, America may now take credit for the first free and fair presidential elections in that country's history. The remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime have proved more resilient, and lethal, than expected, but in three months Iraq will hold free parliamentary elections.

We do not understate the difficulty of the struggle against the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. But after the mass graves, the torture, the corruption, the forced impoverishment of the Iraqi people by murderous and luxury-loving Saddam and his associates, the use of chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds, the oil-for-food scandal at the United Nations and the threat of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear-arms program, we find it difficult to understand why anyone would have opposed Saddam Hussein's ouster.

With his record of courage and resolution, we believe that President George W. Bush, in a second term, would not only build on the coalition he has already assembled against terrorism but also help establish Mideast peace and broaden democracy in that tortured region. In so doing, he would help ensure the long-term security of the United States.