« My senate "Whip Count" on the Iran Deal | Main | TV shooting proves that Americans are greatest threat to Americans - TTG »

28 August 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick Bahzad – with hat in hand, I need your additional input based on your considerable experience:

If you recall back on your recent thread , I wrote the following:

Johnny Reims said in reply to Patrick Bahzad...
PB. Got it. Thanks. I am totally kosher with idea of a new factor, e.g. domestic terrorism. Trying to determine if US FP still adds or diminishes to the overall risk and whether or not it should be considered in addition to new factor that leads to the writing on the wall. As an example, will bombing ISIS or deploying US troops to Syria effect overall risk to US civilians and, if so, how much. Should US seal borders for national security reasons, in addition to acknowledging domestic threat that already resides within and so on. Basically, I have viewed the risks of new factor as overlaying the continuing risks of the old, meaning the old should not be ignored but incorporated into overall new assessment.

-------end of quote-------

Here is one conclusion from this essay, From Paper State to Caliphate (page 36):

The military campaign also bodes poorly for U.S. homeland security. The Islamic State has long prioritized the Middle East over the West, focusing on seizing and holding territory in its home theater, then bringing down neighboring governments. The air campaign, however, has apparently altered the group’s strategic calculus. On September 21, 2014, Islamic State official spokesman Abu Muhammad al-‘Adnani called on all supporters to kill Westerners arbitrarily throughout the world—Americans, Canadians, Australians, and their allies, both civilians and military personnel.215 This call is being met, with Islamic State-inspired attacks having occurred in these countries.216 Never before has the group seemed so intent on targeting the West. In another speech on January 26, 2015, ‘Adnani repeated his call.217

-------end of quote------

If the above is true and US FP is increasing risk to US citizens, how should US respond to protect its citizens? Continue bombing away? Deploy troops to Syria? Seal US borders? Or become less involved in ME and get out of neighborhood? Or have we crossed the Rubicon and US FP, no matter what form, will not alter risk to citizens (or more generally, the West)? If latter, then I see that as a major, major game changer.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

January 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad