TERRORISM, WIN, LOSE OR DRAW? (No Poll)

[Singlestack]

I agree with everyone else that our current trajectory is to lose completely. This is obvious. My older cousin is a systems engineer recently retired as a DOD weapons/intelligence top secret contractor, I know that he knows a LOT, but is unable to speak about most of it. I asked him if he thought the US would be hit by WMDs from terrorists at some point. His answer was quick and simple: 100% guaranteed. When I asked him why, here was his response:

- Although the US has good-excellent intelligence capabilities, and know about most terrorist attacks before they happened (e.g. FBI and Tsarnaev brothers +specific warnings from Russia, complete knowledge of the 911 hijackers in the US with overstayed visas and attending jetliner pilot school among other things, etc) we WILL be hit because:

- Our port and border security are poor and the bad guys know how to easily circumvent both
- Political correctness is being enforced on gov agencies and the mil (one example - no profiling)
- Even though DHS was supposedly* created to improve information sharing between the various LE agencies, that isn't happening much better than before
- There has been a severe cutback on humint over the past years, and improved satellites and elint have not replaced all the benefits of humint
- One downside of pulling the troops out of Iraq and downsizing in Afghanistan is dulling the mil blade. Couple this with less training due to DOD cutbacks and it becomes noticeable
- The radical muslim population in the US is growing. Not just Dearborn MI, but in every major city now. The reports of some calling for Sharia law in the US are more frequent
- Increasingly, the radical muslims view the US as corrupt and weak. They are emboldened to attempt new attacks on US interests and on US soil
- If the radicals do indeed form a new Caliphate or muslim superstate, they will have the control over strategic oil and resources to have the financial ability to export their terrorism globally

* My cousin thinks DHS was created to give the president greater direct control over the intelligence infrastructure, and not to share information

I'm thinking the US will not have the resolve to sustain a winning effort against radical islam until there have been multiple successful WMD attacks on US soil. I remember after 911, everyone - even the dem libs in congress, were unified for several weeks in calling for a strong response. However, after a few weeks the dems stopped that and started attacking Bush relentlessly - and haven't let up to this day. It will take something *really significant* for the US to sustain an effort with broad support - and I'm not totally convinced the US overall has the resolve to sustain such an effort anyway.

[thvigil11]

I agree with everyone else that our current trajectory is to lose completely. This is obvious. My older cousin is a systems engineer recently retired as a DOD weapons/intelligence top secret contractor, I know that he knows a LOT, but is unable to speak about most of it. I asked him if he thought the US would be hit by WMDs from terrorists at some point. His answer was quick and simple: 100% guaranteed. When I asked him why, here was his response:

- Although the US has good-excellent intelligence capabilities, and know about most terrorist attacks before they happened (e.g. FBI and Tsarnaev brothers +specific warnings from Russia, complete knowledge of the 911 hijackers in the US with overstayed visas and attending jetliner pilot school among other things, etc) we WILL be hit because:

- Our port and border security are poor and the bad guys know how to easily circumvent both
- Political correctness is being enforced on gov agencies and the mil (one example - no profiling)
- Even though DHS was supposedly* created to improve information sharing between the various LE agencies, that isn't happening much better than before
- There has been a severe cutback on humint over the past years, and improved satellites and elint have not replaced all the benefits of humint
- One downside of pulling the troops out of Iraq and downsizing in Afghanistan is dulling the mil blade. Couple this with less training due to DOD cutbacks and it becomes noticeable
- The radical muslim population in the US is growing. Not just Dearborn MI, but in every major city now. The reports of some calling for Sharia law in the US are more frequent
- Increasingly, the radical muslims view the US as corrupt and weak. They are emboldened to attempt new attacks on US interests and on US soil
- If the radicals do indeed form a new Caliphate or muslim superstate, they will have the control over strategic oil and resources to have the financial ability to export their terrorism globally

* My cousin thinks DHS was created to give the president greater direct control over the intelligence infrastructure, and not to share information

I'm thinking the US will not have the resolve to sustain a winning effort against radical islam until there have been multiple successful WMD attacks on US soil. I remember after 911, everyone - even the dem libs in congress, were unified for several weeks in calling for a strong response. However, after a few weeks the dems stopped that and started attacking Bush relentlessly - and haven't let up to this day. It will take something *really significant* for the US to sustain an effort with broad support - and I'm not totally convinced the US overall has the resolve to sustain such an effort anyway.

+1 Creating DHS was just rearranging deck chairs. So far its easier to kill Americans that are overseas, but pull all our troops back and the focus will come to the mainland.