Unfortunately, Dick (if I may call him that now that he's just a private citizen) may be right, but for the wrong reasons.  Let's say that Obama does somehow manage to deescalate the violence and turn people away from Jihad.  Al-Qaeda won't like that.  They thrive among chaos and violence.  While they weren't in Iraq until we went in there, they did see an opportunity to turn chaos into civil war.  Their long-term goal is complete domination by their harsh brand of Islam, and death to everyone else.  In the short to intermediate term, they want to cause Jihad and violent destabilization everywhere they can.  It is NOT in their interest to see peaceful resolution; it would mean their irrelevance.  Since they never seriously believed the West was strong enough to finish them off through violent means - there are just too many Muslims willing to be martyred for the cause - stirring the pot is exactly what they want.  
The solution is to treat Al-Qaeda as the criminal thug gang it is, track them down through superior intelligence, as well as their weapons, money and personnel, and support the societies where they might thrive, so they can't get a toehold.  They are like a cancer that infects every region they land in, and they will have to be methodically cut out each time.  In the meantime, it is unrealistic to expect Obama, or any president, can keep us completely safe.  Speaking of realistic, we are far more likely to die from any one of the top 50 causes of death than from a terrorist attack.  Perhaps the War on Terror should be waged, and won, from within.