It's obvious to anybody who walks along Wall Street on a Sundaymorning that there is some kind of war going on. With the New YorkStock Exchange closed, it should be a nice peacefulstroll. That was before 9/11.

A Sunday morning walk now takes you past ranks ofroad-traps, metal barriers, bollards, and armed guards, ready atall times to counter a terrorist attack on NYSE, one of the mosticonic targets in the western world.

When President Obama took the oath of office, the Bush era ofpre-emptive war ended. Yet considerable continuity on securityand foreign policy issues remains. Idealism has given way torealism. Contrary to Obama's pre-election pledge, GuantanamoBay has stayed open “'to house some very dangerouspeople,” and through his aggressive unilateral drone policy,more than twice as many suspected terrorists have been killed aswere ever locked up there.

Obama has essentially persevered with the basic foreignpolicy of his predecessor, but by more limited means in an age ofausterity. His rhetoric has been different–and his war onterror more focused–but his determination to disrupt Al Qaeda hasbeen as resolute.

The counterterrorism track record under the Obama administrationhas been as impressive as when Michael Chertoff was secretary ofHomeland Security. Since 2009, there have been numerous audaciousplots against the homeland, but only two were not interdicted bythe security services: the Christmas Day aviation bomb plot and theTimes Square vehicle bomb plot. In both plots, the terroristsocial networks were minimized to avoid detection: the larger thenetwork, the greater the chance of discovery.

Following the same security principle, Osama bin Laden's contactwith the outside world was minimized to a single courier. Butultimately, the courier's indiscretion led the CIA toAbottabad.

As much as anyone else, President Obama could claim the creditfor bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Against the advice of bothhis vice president and secretary of Defense, he authorized the raidon Abottabad, even though there was only an even chance that binLaden was even there. As the crowning achievement in his war onterror, this bold demonstration of hard power finds more favor withthe electorate than the projection of soft power throughopen-handed diplomacy. Indeed, the Navy SEALs who hastened thedemise of the aging Al Qaeda leader reckoned their heroics wouldsecure another White House term for theircommander-in-chief.

The security transition from Bush to Obama was smoother than hadbeen anticipated or even imagined. The surge in Afghanistan isan example of a hawkish foreign policy with considerablecross-party support. Back home, counterterrorism security hasbeen maintained at a high level, with prime targets, such as NYSEand the State Department, having fortress security standards.Lowering security was not a strategy to attract undecidedvoters.

Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney promised vigilance athome and abroad over the next four years. For terrorism-riskunderwriters, the choice between Obama and Romney was lessabout which candidate's policies would most suppress terrorismclaims and keep the homeland safe, and more about which candidate'spolicies would bring back boom years on Wall Street.