The main issue, Tommygunn, and you are continuing to avoid it, is that a great threat is measured not only in how undesireable the event that is threatening us is, but also how likely it is to occur. Then we must estimate whether the expenses, in terms of money and discomfort to our lifestyle and freedom, are worth it.
I have used this example before: there exists a chance I might get shot tomorrow. If I get a loan, buy a bullet-resistant vest, and wear it daily, I would reduce that risk (although not completely to zero, I might still get shot in the head, or by a bullet that penetrates the vest). But I do not buy such a vest, not because I don't value my life, but because the discomfort from wearing the vest in hot Israeli weather, as well as the cost of the vest, is very high, while the actual likelihood I'd be shot (say, 0.000000000001%) is very low. As such, reducing the chance I'd get shot and killed from 0.000000000001% to 0.0000000000001% is not worth the investment in money and comfort.
We as a civilization made a vast investment in money, freedom, and political capital (which might have been applied to much-needed domestic reforms) to forestall a very low-likelihood event - that is, series of 'mega-attacks' like 9/11 disrupting our civilization. Yet the chance of these attacks happening again can never be reduced to zero (there will always be some Muslim terrorist group somewhere).
Our culture in the West has become entirely incapable of properly estimating the rate of risk from various events. You might see this in the annual whinefests about the latest spree shooting, the collapse of the space program (due in part to fears of accident and astronaut deaths), bans on items that are 0.0000000001% more likely to kill you (think about Yarts, or bans on airsoft guns in some countries).
Yes, I am not a maniac Rothbardian - surely if there was, for example, a North Korean invasion of CONUS, the President would likely declare martial law, confiscate all the trucks for military use,, and start drafting sixteen-year-olds to run at the North Korean tanks with fixed bayonets.
But this doesn't mean that every threat against America is an EMERGENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY.
Thereofre the question of what threat level is acceptable arises in all of its cold-hearted, steely nakedness. Since the threat level is never going to be zero, we must ask ourselves as a civilization - what threat level are we willing to accept. This question is not seriously discussed in public, in part because the media thrives on the aura of emergency as much as the politicians.
True, I have NO IDEA HOW to estimate how likely any particular threat is.
I have no way of doing that.I do know that we ARE in a war with what I consider to be a determined & ruthless enemy.
I find some of your post a bit specious.
During WW2 we had no idea what the real abilities or the real end goal of our enemies were. We prepared dor possible invasions -- blacked out lights around port cities and established air raid patrols and such.
It was really only after the war we learned that the Japanese never really intended to take over the U.S. Hit us with a nuke in San Francisco? If they could.
In fact they never possessed the ability to stage a real invasion .... unless they gave up their SE. Asia CoProsperity sphere idea and redeployed on an incredibly massive scale....probably something that they just couldn't do, logistically.
We don't really know so much about the Wahabists now. What
we seem to think is they're disjointed, unled, unorgainized, and capable only of pulling together some homegrown attacks that misfire due to either sheer incompetence or being infiltrated by FBI, ATF, or other LEO, or some associate turns them in.
I am not hardly privy to the kind of intelligence that the government would use to better classify, and or determine just what is going on in the plotters inside AQ and other terrorist organisations.
And I don't think very many others are, either; a condition that will IMO persist until the war IS truly over and a lot of classified stuff is declassified, and history books are written about this time.
Yea, I have hung out with folks on and off the State Department terrorist list. Mostly Albanian and Kurdish separatist groups, both mostly arm's length interaction with Wahabi groups. It was fairly educational. They explained quite a bit. Shiites are typically territorial, and by their notion of territory. They tend to being dirt poor. Stay out of their turf, and they'll stick to killing each other and their neighbours. Sunni tend to have the big money, and are big into expansion. They are big on sponsoring conversion around the globe. They also are willing to travel to blow things up. Staying out of their turf is not enough. They are our primary ally and enemy. Ally, because they buy off US politicians and upper echelon desk jockeys. State is filled with their cronies. Everyone else is a mixed bag of random ethnic groups that get screwed over by the big two. They don't matter outside their small patches of turf. The Kurds, Albanians, Chetchens, et al conceded they were no ones compared to the Sunni and Shiites. So they ratchet up violence in their neighbourhoods. Much more likely to have genocide. Either giving or taking, depending on the century.
You are entitled to an option. Does not mean it is automatically entitled weight. More direct experience and knowledge hopefully should be accorded weight.
Respectfully, alleging I am some kind of idiot or defeatist because I have a different opinion and experience is downright hysterical. For your own example, the Indians also lacked all of the same things as the Wahabi. And we crushed them. In spite of taking their turf, which is a hundred times more difficult than just killing extremists. Folks with their back against a wall to defend their land and family fight with a hundred times the motivation of mere ideology.
I was not trying to allege
you were a "defeatist." I am surprised that it is not I who is being seen as a "defeatist," in fact, since I am saying that I believe most of America does not seem to have the stomach or patience to bring this war to a resolution.
What I said about the Indians was that we crushed
their spirit. In spite of the fact we have far better technology than they (
meaning wahabiists in this sentence) do I am beginning to wonder how that will work out.
The Indians fought
very, very well when we met them on the open plains. They traveled, moved, maneuvered and fought on lighter,
faster ponies and showed a
superior grasp of tactics and strategy than many of the commanders who led cavalry units against them.
The one tactic we had that usually worked was hitting them while they were encamped. That seemed to, however, work too well. It made the U.S. Army and the Plains Indian Wars quite unpopular among many eastern cities and hurt the war effort as it led to a number of what were believed (rightly or wrongly) to be outright massacres.
Wiki Sand Creek Massacre as an example.
Do you recall the phrase "paper tiger?"
I don't even know if there is some metric about how the wahabists "spirit" is doing these days. I don't count
ours as being in the "good" catagory -- and that does concern me.
Your experience with people on the state dept. "watch lists" does surprise me. Not so much that I am envious of that experience .... I have little desire to have anything to do with Kurdish Rebels or others like that.
I apologize to you if I offended you -- and I did come off awfully snarky in that last post.
You may have some good insights into their culture and abilities, but I have a
real hard time believing that we are well prepared to deal with whatever level of threats they do pose when our own FBI won't follow through on reports of alien people wanting to learn to fly, but not land or take off, huge airliners.
And I do not believe the TSA circuses at airports are helpful .... or are anything OTHER than Government "performance Art" to make us feel better. I guess some people must enjoy being wand raped ..... atleast in the opinion of the TSA Security Squads......
Could go on about DHS and other **** too I guess......
I am enough a student of history to be aware of some blatantly idiotic intelligence blunders during WW2 involving "Purple Intelligence" that make me wonder just how it was we did win that war if something called "fate" is only an illusion. So it's not like we've never been there before anyway.
We need to be able win every contact with the BGs....they need only get "lucky" once....as has been pointed out.
Again, my apologies if my previous post offended you. It was not my intention.
I just wish I could be as confident in this country's future with regards to the external threats it faces. It is not so much from a point of view of someone who believes he has all the answers (I sure don't) or has a terrific insight into the minds and beliefs of our enemies (probably not, I admit) but someone who is
severely disaffected with and
distrustful of our
own government's ability and willingness to deal realistically and effectively with not only this situation, but a number of other serious domestic problems as well.
