It is true that since 9/11 the United States has not suffered another attack. It is also true that since 9/11 the United States has spent vast sums to upgrade its "Homeland Security". Also, it is true that the United States has passed several laws, granting law enforcement new powers, with which to "defend" the country.
None of this is up for debate.
What is up for debate... is causation.
The plain truth is, all of the steps that US has taken are not provably responsible for the lack of an attack. Indeed there is evidence quite to the contrary.
In 2002 the US laid hands on an Al Queda document outlining thier strategy. The document said that the US shouldn't be targeted directly. That they should instead focus on our allies, and break their will to support us. Spain was the first on the list.
The plain truth is... for all of our bluster... about fighting there instead of here... about vigilence... the only reason we haven't been hit is because they've chosen not to hit us.
You think for 1 second what happened in Madrid or London would've been prevented in New York? Think again.
We're giving up freedoms for in exchange for nothing. We're being herded around like cattle... in exchange for nothing. We haven't stopped them from hitting us. They haven't tried. We maybe fighting them over there... but while we're fighting in Iraq, they're still bombing us in Madrid and London.
Fight them there instead of here. Sounds good. In a conventional war it might actually mean something.
This is not a conventional war. In this war fighting on multiple fronts just means finding a few impressionable young boys and supplying them with some timers, dynamite, and brief instructions on how to influence foriegn policy.