Much of the speculation on September 12, 2001 and in the days and weeks that followed concerned when and where we would be hit next. What would the targets be? How would they hit them? How do we prepare?

Within weeks, disaster preparedness kits started appearing in stores only to fly off the shelves as Americans did what they could to prepare for the next attack which everyone seemed convinced was imminent.

To this day, thankfully, we have prevented the next mass casualty terror attack. I use the word "prevented" on purpose, as opposed to "avoided." We have prevented the sequel to 9/11 thus far despite the best efforts of al Queda and its imitators. America's law enforcement, military and intelligence communities deserve credit for thwarting such plans, including former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, and their teams.

While the military response to 9/11 was directed primarily at Afghanistan, the President and his team correctly understood that the terrorist threat was not specific to that country, but instead was and remains global. The terrorist threat to America is not primarily rooted in the sponsorship of one state, but rather flows from organizations that transcend national boundaries in their staging, operations and financing.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama argued that Iraq was a diversion from the global war on terror, and that Afghanistan should be the real focus where terrorism is concerned. This represents a worldview, or at least a political view, that Iraq was the politically incorrect war, while Afghanistan is acceptable because the country served as the staging ground for 9/11.

The real strategic issue is that terrorist groups and their imitators and allies don't owe allegiance to any particular country, making a nation-specific focus on our part besides the point. The real issue concerns where terrorist groups may find allies, and destroying such opportunities for basing, staging and financing.

The terrorists' orientation goes beyond national boundaries, and our focus must do the same if we are to protect our country, its citizens, and our allies.

My visit to Ground Zero reminded me of the events of September 11, 2001 and the impact those events have had on our nation, and my own life.

We can all remember where we were when we heard the news of 9/11. For me, the news came on the morning after my first meeting as the new Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County. We had an exciting meeting on the evening of September 10, drawing hundreds of people to the Manchester Grand Hyatt including friends and colleagues from out of town.

Less than twelve hours after we adjourned that meeting, three planes commandeered by terrorists hit their targets in New York and Washington, while a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. By the end of that day, the global war on terror would be on.

On the morning of 9-11 my clock radio came on around 6:40, with the LA newscaster saying something about "all bridges and tunnels into the city are closed." That odd statement (what bridges and tunnels into LA?) prompted me to turn on the TV to see a picture of the World Trade Center with smoke emerging. Shortly thereafter, the buildings collapsed, leading eventually to the work site I saw on my visit last weekend. Photos

One of the passengers on American flight 77 out of Washington, DC was conservative activist Barbara Olson. Barbara was married to President Bush's Solicitor General, Ted. Barbara and I attended many of the same meetings in Washington and I knew her as a tenacious activist. Sadly, she met the same fate as the other passengers when her plane was crashed into the Pentagon.

One of my closest friends on Long Island arrived home from an overnight tour of duty a few hours before the buildings were hit. By Noon he would be on his way back to the city, part of a NYPD citywide mobilization. He would be on hand near the WTC site for the next few days -straight. Today, he suffers from an extremely rare condition that has been attributed to exposure to the contaminants that filled the air following the collapse of the towers. His situation reminds me of the importance that we as a society make sure those who were impacted in the line of duty, and their families, are properly taken care of.

The Obama Administration on Monday opted to ramp up the involvement of law enforcement in the global war on terror. What may surprise most Americans is that this new law enforcement emphasis is not aimed at those who plot and commit acts of violence, but rather the intelligence agents charged with defeating them.

Attorney General Eric Holder has named John Durham as special prosecutor as the first step toward bringing chargest against current and former CIA personnel for the interrogation techniques used on detainees, mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Press reports indicate the decision to move forward toward prosecution was taken solely by AG Holder, and may even stand in contrast to the President's own stated position to move on from the national security "controversies" of the Bush Administration.

Yet, it is implausible that Holder would take such action without at least tacit approval from his boss, the President. Additionally, this action is in line with the stated desires of liberal Democrat members of Congress, including several from California, who would clearly like nothing more than a full scale witch hunt of Bush Administration officials involved with protecting America and her allies from terrorist attacks following 9/11.

Holder's moves are inconsistent with an effective national security policy, particularly regarding the global war on terror, and the related issues of securing victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For instance, in recent weeks we have witnessed a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq, including the bombing of the Foreign Ministry building and other key government facilities, coinciding with the withdrawal of US military forces from urban areas, and the decision by the al Maliki government to remove protective concrete barriers from many areas in Baghdad, increasing their vulnerability to attack.

Insurgents and terrorists have seen such moves as new opportunities to press on with their campaign of violence against the democratically elected government. Likewise, what signal does it send to terrorists and insurgents to have the United States engaged in the high profile prosecution of those who were charged with fighting and defeating their violent brethren? The answer: encouragement.

The decision to prepare for a witch hunt of Bush Administration officials (which liberals in Congress would pursue, and still may, regardless of the direction the Obama Justice Department takes) comes on the heels of last week's complete failure of the Obama Administration to block the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi from prison in Scotland.

Barack Obama is credited by Europeans and American liberals with having elevated America's stature and "soft power."

Yet, despite "weeks and months" of effort by the Obama State Department, it could not even convince America's closest ally, Great Britain, to not release the man responsible for the murder of 189 Americans. Instead, the bomber was released, picked up in Muammar Gaddafi's private plane, and flown back to Libya to be greeted by a massive state sponsored rally at the airport.

So much for results from the Obama diplomatic team.

Barack Obama is certainly bringing "change" to the global war on terror: treating attacks on America as law enforcement violations, and an overreliance on diplomacy that has witnessed the return of a mass murderer to his home country and fresh threats to the democratically elected government in Iraq.