Dick Cheney: Expect 'Far Deadlier' Terror Attack Within Decade

[musiclady]

Beckel is the side show there!  Bolling is getting to be on my last nerve lately.  He's the epitome of Kruschev's "rope" example.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Kruschev's "rope" example?

(btw, I'm confused by Bolling's emotional, irrational feelings about Iraq.  He's usually more cerebral than he's being now).

[jmyrlefuller]

When you've seen, read, and heard all of the intelligence reports that Cheney has seen, then you have a right to comment on his opinion.

Cheney hasn't seen an intelligence report in five years.

[Charlespg]

When you've seen, read, and heard all of the intelligence reports that Cheney has seen, then you have a right to comment on his opinion.

 

[Fishrrman]

musiclady wrote above:
[[ Even some of us layfolk understand that militant Islam is a very real threat to our safety, and even our way of life.
But imagine knowing what Cheney knows and watching a Marxist punk destroy everything you worked so diligently and faithfully to preserve.
I'm actually surprised that he isn't saying more. ]]

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words:

[Chieftain]

Cheney hasn't seen an intelligence report in five years.

Really??  And just how the frack do you know that??

Ever hear the one about when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging??

 

[musiclady]

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words:

Perfect!   


 :thumbsup2:

[jmyrlefuller]

Really??  And just how the frack do you know that??

In most cases, you stop receiving work-related materials when you leave your job. Cheney's pretty much a private citizen now. Other than perhaps some Secret Service protection, I'd suspect he doesn't get much access to anything beyond what you or I have at our disposal.

Look, I understand that this board is largely populated with older members with military background— and that's obviously not my profile. I understand the skew more toward national defense among many on this board. I don't agree with it, but I can see the perspective.

Yet there is a difference between accurately assessing a legitimate threat and deliberately exaggerating the threat by stoking fear in the hearts of Americans. Cheney openly admits he's calling for a very expensive and draining Middle East operation, the same kind that failed to produce a lasting stable government in Iraq the first time. To do so, he has concocted this scenario involving a mass casualty event the scale of which the Islamic terror movement has never pulled off before in any area of the world.

It is one of the stated goals of al-Qaeda to bankrupt the United States. Cheney is falling right into the trap.

[olde north church]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Kruschev's "rope" example?

(btw, I'm confused by Bolling's emotional, irrational feelings about Iraq.  He's usually more cerebral than he's being now).

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

I believe Bolling is bothered by the face his son is about 15 years old.  He doesn't want him spent on the battlefield for no reason.  Based upon what's been going on over there, I don't really blame him.  Although the MEN who died on D Day and at Chosin were someone's son, father or husband.

[EC]

In most cases, you stop receiving work-related materials when you leave your job. Cheney's pretty much a private citizen now. Other than perhaps some Secret Service protection, I'd suspect he doesn't get much access to anything beyond what you or I have at our disposal.

Look, I understand that this board is largely populated with older members with military background— and that's obviously not my profile. I understand the skew more toward national defense among many on this board. I don't agree with it, but I can see the perspective.

Yet there is a difference between accurately assessing a legitimate threat and deliberately exaggerating the threat by stoking fear in the hearts of Americans. Cheney openly admits he's calling for a very expensive and draining Middle East operation, the same kind that failed to produce a lasting stable government in Iraq the first time. To do so, he has concocted this scenario involving a mass casualty event the scale of which the Islamic terror movement has never pulled off before in any area of the world.

It is one of the stated goals of al-Qaeda to bankrupt the United States. Cheney is falling right into the trap.

Not exactly true. Most active or formerly actives here are still plugged in to the system to a certain extent. We have friends who are still working, people we have trained, children who have gone into service. In the old days it were tricky - phone calls or letters or face to face meet ups. Now, 30 seconds for a quick email and the contact is done. It is beneficial, mostly. The inactives (never say retired) give their experience and feel useful, and the actives gain the benefit of often decades of experience.

While I personally don't find Cheney a savory sort of character, do you think he doesn't have as expansive a network as us peons? It's probably three times the size that most of us have, and a little bit looser as far as "need to know" goes, since security clearance is rarely if ever revoked.

Your point about assessing a threat vs exaggerating a threat is a good one. Yet you miss the point - we are trained to take all threats deadly seriously. To use Chief as an example, he spent years on a floating island. A bloody massive thing, a technological marvel. Yet put an inflatable rubber dingy heading their way and the threat assessment goes way up. The Navy remembers the Cole, even if no one else does. I could have used another couple of dozen regular posters with the same effect.

It's an extreme case of plan for the worst. It's one of the main reasons and justifications for civilian oversight of the military.

[musiclady]

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

I believe Bolling is bothered by the face his son is about 15 years old.  He doesn't want him spent on the battlefield for no reason.  Based upon what's been going on over there, I don't really blame him.  Although the MEN who died on D Day and at Chosin were someone's son, father or husband.

Yes, I've heard him say he wants to protect his son, but as a Mom of a 17 year old Army Reserve when 9/11 hit, I don't have a lot of sympathy for his cause.

YES, every single (good) parent wants to protect his or her son, but you don't determine your views on foreign policy because of your parental instincts.

I obviously understand why Bolling doesn't want his son to fight in the disaster that Obama has created in Iraq, but his emotional absolutism about foreign policy is, IMO, way over the top.

He's usually rational.

(Oh, and thanks for the explanation of the "rope" example!)

[GourmetDan]

I believe Bolling is bothered by the face his son is about 15 years old.  He doesn't want him spent on the battlefield for no reason.  Based upon what's been going on over there, I don't really blame him.  Although the MEN who died on D Day and at Chosin were someone's son, father or husband.

I used the recent ISIS invasion in Iraq to re-emphasize to my son why I counseled him not to join the military.  All of the efforts of the men who fought and died there were pissed-away by an unprincipled politician for short-term political gain.

My son's life is worth more than that...

[Bigun]

Not exactly true. Most active or formerly actives here are still plugged in to the system to a certain extent. We have friends who are still working, people we have trained, children who have gone into service. In the old days it were tricky - phone calls or letters or face to face meet ups. Now, 30 seconds for a quick email and the contact is done. It is beneficial, mostly. The inactives (never say retired) give their experience and feel useful, and the actives gain the benefit of often decades of experience.

While I personally don't find Cheney a savory sort of character, do you think he doesn't have as expansive a network as us peons? It's probably three times the size that most of us have, and a little bit looser as far as "need to know" goes, since security clearance is rarely if ever revoked.

Your point about assessing a threat vs exaggerating a threat is a good one. Yet you miss the point - we are trained to take all threats deadly seriously. To use Chief as an example, he spent years on a floating island. A bloody massive thing, a technological marvel. Yet put an inflatable rubber dingy heading their way and the threat assessment goes way up. The Navy remembers the Cole, even if no one else does. I could have used another couple of dozen regular posters with the same effect.

It's an extreme case of plan for the worst. It's one of the main reasons and justifications for civilian oversight of the military.

 

Thank God there are at least a few around here who understand how things REALLY work in the free world!

[Chieftain]

Not exactly true. Most active or formerly actives here are still plugged in to the system to a certain extent. We have friends who are still working, people we have trained, children who have gone into service. In the old days it were tricky - phone calls or letters or face to face meet ups. Now, 30 seconds for a quick email and the contact is done. It is beneficial, mostly. The inactives (never say retired) give their experience and feel useful, and the actives gain the benefit of often decades of experience.

While I personally don't find Cheney a savory sort of character, do you think he doesn't have as expansive a network as us peons? It's probably three times the size that most of us have, and a little bit looser as far as "need to know" goes, since security clearance is rarely if ever revoked.

Your point about assessing a threat vs exaggerating a threat is a good one. Yet you miss the point - we are trained to take all threats deadly seriously. To use Chief as an example, he spent years on a floating island. A bloody massive thing, a technological marvel. Yet put an inflatable rubber dingy heading their way and the threat assessment goes way up. The Navy remembers the Cole, even if no one else does. I could have used another couple of dozen regular posters with the same effect.

It's an extreme case of plan for the worst. It's one of the main reasons and justifications for civilian oversight of the military.

Exactly right and I could not have put it better myself.  Civilians have no idea what kind of ties people take with them into retirement, as well as the extent of some of the personal contacts people make along the way.

I worked with a Navy Lieutenant who flew the A-6, and he had done a joint tour earlier in his career with the Israeli Defense Force, and cultivated a number of close contacts with some very good Israeli pilots who were pretty high up the food chain.  Right before the first Gulf War kicked off, there was a lot of concern about Saddam Hussein attacking Israel with his chemical weapons.  My Lt. friend made a call to his buddy in Isreal one night just to touch bases and make sure he was safe.  My friend asked his friend what he thought would happen if Saddam did what he was threatening to do, and the Israeli assured him that when the first Iraqi chemical warhead landed on Israeli soil, "The sun will rise over Baghdad" shortly thereafter.

I have an uncle who is a retired Navy Commander who is a professional nuclear weapons expert that works specifically on determining what nuclear weapons secres can and cannot be declassifed.  He and I have had many a long conversation about topics I would never be able to repeat in public, and even then I only know what he was comfortable talking about.  He's expanded my horizons incredibly on tactical and strategic issues of all descriptions.

Now if I have those kinds of contacts still, after a 20 year career in the Navy, concluding as a Senior Enlisted man, one can easily imagine what kind of ongoing contacts Dick Cheney still has after serving as Vice President, Secretary of Defense, along with a long Congressional career.  To think he was simply cut off from all of that once he retired from the Vice Presidency is absurd, and not worth considering.  All one has to do is read what Cheney had to say, and you cannot deny he is speaking from the depths of his long, long experience on these matters.

Like him or not, Dick Cheney still has a lot of important things to say about the state of the Union, and he is well worth listening to, for those who have ears......

 

[olde north church]

I used the recent ISIS invasion in Iraq to re-emphasize to my son why I counseled him not to join the military.  All of the efforts of the men who fought and died there were pissed-away by an unprincipled politician for short-term political gain.

My son's life is worth more than that...

Truth be told, if I were an Iraqi and they doing a call to arms, I would think twice about joining.  There is no way to determine the level of deceipt and sabotage that is going on over there.

[GourmetDan]

Truth be told, if I were an Iraqi and they doing a call to arms, I would think twice about joining.  There is no way to determine the level of deceipt and sabotage that is going on over there.

I wouldn't even have to think twice.  The answer would be no.

The U.S. has a long history of abandoning 'allies' once they are no longer politically useful and that shows no sign of changing...

(Not the American people, but our 'government'.  I hope that the rest of the world understands that but, I'm thinking not.)

[EC]

I have an uncle who is a retired Navy Commander who is a professional nuclear weapons expert that works specifically on determining what nuclear weapons secres can and cannot be declassifed.  He and I have had many a long conversation about topics I would never be able to repeat in public, and even then I only know what he was comfortable talking about.  He's expanded my horizons incredibly on tactical and strategic issues of all descriptions.

Now if I have those kinds of contacts still, after a 20 year career in the Navy, concluding as a Senior Enlisted man, one can easily imagine what kind of ongoing contacts Dick Cheney still has after serving as Vice President, Secretary of Defense, along with a long Congressional career.  To think he was simply cut off from all of that once he retired from the Vice Presidency is absurd, and not worth considering.  All one has to do is read what Cheney had to say, and you cannot deny he is speaking from the depths of his long, long experience on these matters.

Like him or not, Dick Cheney still has a lot of important things to say about the state of the Union, and he is well worth listening to, for those who have ears......

 

Don't know about you, but in some ways that is the worst for me. Knowing which tail is wagging which dog and simply not being able to talk about it outside of a VERY small circle of very trusted friends and relatives.

I can give a small example. My Father in law, God rest his soul, was instrumental in the formation of Operation Gladio in Italy back in 1948. My wife was born in 1959 and had absolutely no clue about what he was doing until it was declassified in 1990. She has fond memories of her "American Uncle" who were CIA station head at the time, but that is all she knew. He was just a nice man with a pair of daughters her age, his Italian was bad, who would buy ice cream for them all, then talk to her father while they ate and swam in the pool. She never found out until I told her about it in very general terms - her father and I got to talking one night when I were due to go out again.

Secrecy is important. There are some things the public does not have the right to know. Yet it's annoying to watch people make the same damned mistakes over and over again.

[massadvj]

Just exactly who are we supposed to support in the Middle East in order to prevent the next 9/11?  ISIS, the enemy of the moment, is the creation of the Saudis and other Sunni countries along with our CIA.  But now we are supposed to join Iran (the enemy of the last 45 years) in order to defeat them.  But then when Iran wins and creates a Middle East superpower, then what?

Our policies in the Middle East have been a joke.  We cannot impose civilization on people who do not desire to be civilized.  You might as well try to civilize the monkeys at the zoo.  It's time we get the hell out of there and let them settle their affairs themselves.  With any luck, there will be nothing left of the place when they are done.

[EC]

With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen.

Accept that it will. A monolithic command structure can not deal with independent cells. It can respond well, sure, but the problem is seeing what is going to happen before it happens. Not many precogs on the NSA staff.

As far as what to do and who to support - I say do nothing and support no one. Humanitarian aid, sure - go for it, the Marshall plan was a pretty successful idea. But picking sides - just no. I've said it before - ISIL is a proving ground. It is harder training than anything a soldier goes through. Fail, you die, win, you keep breathing. Keeping breathing is a powerful motivator. After 3 years of constant warfare in Syria, they know their business. These are not suicide bombers, these are cold and experienced killers.

[aligncare]

Ditto, massadvj.

[olde north church]

Just exactly who are we supposed to support in the Middle East in order to prevent the next 9/11?  ISIS, the enemy of the moment, is the creation of the Saudis and other Sunni countries along with our CIA.  But now we are supposed to join Iran (the enemy of the last 45 years) in order to defeat them.  But then when Iran wins and creates a Middle East superpower, then what?

Our policies in the Middle East have been a joke.  We cannot impose civilization on people who do not desire to be civilized.  You might as well try to civilize the monkeys at the zoo.  It's time we get the hell out of there and let them settle their affairs themselves.  With any luck, there will be nothing left of the place when they are done.

There are two major motivations behind ME policy, oil and religion.  Oil?  It's not just a matter of needing it for our industrial purposes but preventing our "rivals" from getting what they need.  If we can direct export to our allies, so much the better.
The second, religion, is our ally Israel in that bad neighborhood.  We our allied because our values are based upon their historical values.  Judeo-Christian ethics ring a bell?  Those who would disregard that connection, would cut our mooring to much of what we are.
With whom do we remain alllied?  Israel.  Full stop.  Let the others come to us.  Americans, piss-poor negotiators they are, forget we need Arabian and Qatari and Kuwaiti and U.A.E. oil but they can't defend themselves from Iran or any other screwball in the area.  Let them come to us for defense.  Turn the situation around for the love of Christ.

[katzenjammer]

With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen.

Accept that it will. A monolithic command structure can not deal with independent cells. It can respond well, sure, but the problem is seeing what is going to happen before it happens. Not many precogs on the NSA staff.

As far as what to do and who to support - I say do nothing and support no one. Humanitarian aid, sure - go for it, the Marshall plan was a pretty successful idea. But picking sides - just no. I've said it before - ISIL is a proving ground. It is harder training than anything a soldier goes through. Fail, you die, win, you keep breathing. Keeping breathing is a powerful motivator. After 3 years of constant warfare in Syria, they know their business. These are not suicide bombers, these are cold and experienced killers.

You've hit on several good points, EC.  (I will only quibble about the humanitarian aid aspect, simply because the US can no longer afford it.  It seems that we all have become desensitized (which is a natural phenomenon of the human condition) to the reality of the debt.  But that is another topic.)

There are some key aspects of the whole "war on terror" that have been "oversold" (to put in mildly) and have been used to justify the wholesale looting and bankrupting (in more ways than financially) of the nation.  One of them is the notion that we must fight ground wars in the ME or NA to prevent terrorism from reaching our shores.  Lately I have been wondering when FNC is going to start looping the videos of terrorists jumping over saw horses and climbing makeshift monkey bars that were used shortly after 9/11 to drum up support for the need to eliminate "training camps."  I am amazed at the folly of this whole notion.  The simple reality of how jihadist attacks may come to the US shores again can not be prevented by blowing up, or commandeering, large tracts of desert or mountains across the globe.  The kinds of attacks that they may undertake don't require legions of fighters training with weapons that will be used to invade as a landing force. 

All that is required for this type of planning, funding, sourcing, and recruitment is a set of encrypted satellite phones (with an ever changing set of cryptology) and a one-room apartment or hotel room.  This type of planning is, and has been, taking place in cities like Berlin, London, Paris, and DC.  There certainly doesn't seem to be any shortage of planners, funders, or recruits, it does seem that the sourcing of weapons to inflict the type of mass damage and causalities that they may desire has been the sticking point.  Whenever I hear people talk about "terrorists training in Afghanistan for the original 9/11 attack" I shake my head in wonder.  It seems pretty clear that those 20 odd jihadists that are generally believed to be the perpetrators of the 4 airplane highjackings did the bulk of their "training" right here in the US.  Flight schools from the west coast to the east were apparently used, and much of the clandestine meetings and planning sessions were conducted right here as well, in and around various mosques spread across the country (and perhaps in Berlin).  So I simply fail to understand how spending upwards of a trillion dollars, far too many lives of young men and women, not to speak of the tens of thousands that have returned with their lives irrevocably shattered, in order to destroy and rebuild a nation of feudal fiefdoms (living in the 7th century for all intents and purposes) in Afghanistan, has done much of anything to either avenge the 9/11 attacks or prevent subsequent attacks.  (I am not even going to get into an Iraq discussion at this point.)

What has happened is that a large portion of the US citizenry has been manipulated by emotions, rather than reason, post-9/11.  We've been manipulated into throwing our support into two (still waiting for the third) massive war efforts that simply could not yield anything that they were advertised to do.  Instead, they've led to the continuing bankruptcy of the nation's treasury and caused incalculable suffering and pain to far too many families across the nation.  We've done all of this, and are our collective appetite for more of the same is being whetting constantly, especially of late.  And none of it has done anything of substance to prevent any subsequent attacks for the reasons that you note above.  And I haven't even mentioned the cost of our freedom and liberties that have been stripped away (with barely a whimper of protest) in the name of this "war on terror."

Vic's post above alluded to the money trail and who has benefited greatly from all of it, I won't bother to further comment on that, he spelled it out pretty clearly.  It is no wonder that the West fails to acknowledge and confront the true source of this terror, because as long as that giant elephant is allowed to stand in the middle of the room, there remains a lot of money to be made (and a lot of power to be consolidated) via the ongoing, long-term destruction of the West.  People from all "sides" of the aisle need to wakeup and start thinking with their heads, and not their hearts.

[massadvj]

You've hit on several good points, EC.  (I will only quibble about the humanitarian aid aspect, simply because the US can no longer afford it.  It seems that we all have become desensitized (which is a natural phenomenon of the human condition) to the reality of the debt.  But that is another topic.)

There are some key aspects of the whole "war on terror" that have been "oversold" (to put in mildly) and have been used to justify the wholesale looting and bankrupting (in more ways than financially) of the nation.  One of them is the notion that we must fight ground wars in the ME or NA to prevent terrorism from reaching our shores.  Lately I have been wondering when FNC is going to start looping the videos of terrorists jumping over saw horses and climbing makeshift monkey bars that were used shortly after 9/11 to drum up support for the need to eliminate "training camps."  I am amazed at the folly of this whole notion.  The simple reality of how jihadist attacks may come to the US shores again can not be prevented by blowing up, or commandeering, large tracts of desert or mountains across the globe.  The kinds of attacks that they may undertake don't require legions of fighters training with weapons that will be used to invade as a landing force. 

All that is required for this type of planning, funding, sourcing, and recruitment is a set of encrypted satellite phones (with an ever changing set of cryptology) and a one-room apartment or hotel room.  This type of planning is, and has been, taking place in cities like Berlin, London, Paris, and DC.  There certainly doesn't seem to be any shortage of planners, funders, or recruits, it does seem that the sourcing of weapons to inflict the type of mass damage and causalities that they may desire has been the sticking point.  Whenever I hear people talk about "terrorists training in Afghanistan for the original 9/11 attack" I shake my head in wonder.  It seems pretty clear that those 20 odd jihadists that are generally believed to be the perpetrators of the 4 airplane highjackings did the bulk of their "training" right here in the US.  Flight schools from the west coast to the east were apparently used, and much of the clandestine meetings and planning sessions were conducted right here as well, in and around various mosques spread across the country (and perhaps in Berlin).  So I simply fail to understand how spending upwards of a trillion dollars, far too many lives of young men and women, not to speak of the tens of thousands that have returned with their lives irrevocably shattered, in order to destroy and rebuild a nation of feudal fiefdoms (living in the 7th century for all intents and purposes) in Afghanistan, has done much of anything to either avenge the 9/11 attacks or prevent subsequent attacks.  (I am not even going to get into an Iraq discussion at this point.)

What has happened is that a large portion of the US citizenry has been manipulated by emotions, rather than reason, post-9/11.  We've been manipulated into throwing our support into two (still waiting for the third) massive war efforts that simply could not yield anything that they were advertised to do.  Instead, they've led to the continuing bankruptcy of the nation's treasury and caused incalculable suffering and pain to far too many families across the nation.  We've done all of this, and are our collective appetite for more of the same is being whetting constantly, especially of late.  And none of it has done anything of substance to prevent any subsequent attacks for the reasons that you note above.  And I haven't even mentioned the cost of our freedom and liberties that have been stripped away (with barely a whimper of protest) in the name of this "war on terror."

Vic's post above alluded to the money trail and who has benefited greatly from all of it, I won't bother to further comment on that, he spelled it out pretty clearly.  It is no wonder that the West fails to acknowledge and confront the true source of this terror, because as long as that giant elephant is allowed to stand in the middle of the room, there remains a lot of money to be made (and a lot of power to be consolidated) via the ongoing, long-term destruction of the West.  People from all "sides" of the aisle need to wakeup and start thinking with their heads, and not their hearts.

Very thoughtful and insightful post.  Maybe as ISIS comes at Baghdad driving US Humvees and carrying m-16's someone's curiosity will be aroused.  But I doubt it.   

[Chieftain]

Don't know about you, but in some ways that is the worst for me. Knowing which tail is wagging which dog and simply not being able to talk about it outside of a VERY small circle of very trusted friends and relatives.

I can give a small example. My Father in law, God rest his soul, was instrumental in the formation of Operation Gladio in Italy back in 1948. My wife was born in 1959 and had absolutely no clue about what he was doing until it was declassified in 1990. She has fond memories of her "American Uncle" who were CIA station head at the time, but that is all she knew. He was just a nice man with a pair of daughters her age, his Italian was bad, who would buy ice cream for them all, then talk to her father while they ate and swam in the pool. She never found out until I told her about it in very general terms - her father and I got to talking one night when I were due to go out again.

Secrecy is important. There are some things the public does not have the right to know. Yet it's annoying to watch people make the same damned mistakes over and over again.

Well put, and I concur completely.  The need (and ability) to keep one's pie-hole closed can lead to some amazing opportunities.

I don't mean to rub salt in any wounds, but another highlight of my tour at LSO School was the opportunity to meet, chat with and hear a personal debrief of the mission he led for Argentinian Naval Air Force against HMS Sheffield, from Capitán de Fragata  Augusto Bedacarratz.  Either he or his wingman hit Sheffield with an Exocet.  He was their Chief LSO and came to the US periodically to train with the US Navy, check his LSOs out on our carrier landing simulator and operate on our flight decks whenever possible.  Hell of a guy, enormous bushy moustache, and tells one hell of a combat war story...I've never seen a pilot with a flight jacket covered with more patches than his.  I swear his jacket was made of overlapping squadron and unit patches.

I've launched Argentinian Super Entendards using their throwaway bridles when I was on Ike...we operated with all kinds of NATO aircraft because Eisenhower still had two catapults with bridle launch capabilities.  We used to shoot French F-8 Crusaders periodically as well...those are a lot of fun to shoot and land.  Starting with CVN-70 the Navy started phasing out bridle launching completely, and did not install any bridle arrestors on any subsequent hulls.  The ramps on the very front of the flight deck are the bridle arrestor track ramps to pull the bridle down away from the aircraft.  Older ships still have them both, Eisenhower only had one on the bow, and newer boats have none.

 

[Chieftain]

With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen.

Accept that it will. A monolithic command structure can not deal with independent cells. It can respond well, sure, but the problem is seeing what is going to happen before it happens. Not many precogs on the NSA staff.

As far as what to do and who to support - I say do nothing and support no one. Humanitarian aid, sure - go for it, the Marshall plan was a pretty successful idea. But picking sides - just no. I've said it before - ISIL is a proving ground. It is harder training than anything a soldier goes through. Fail, you die, win, you keep breathing. Keeping breathing is a powerful motivator. After 3 years of constant warfare in Syria, they know their business. These are not suicide bombers, these are cold and experienced killers.

Concur again.  The way to prevent another suicide attack is not to allow it to happen in the first place.  "Leading from behind" is not a defense plan.  It is a display of weakness that people who do not care about human life interpret as an invitation to kill.

The problem is that when Obama pulled out of the World Leadership role in 2009 he not only created a power vacuum he pulled the cork out of the bottle that had contained Islamic extremism and has allowed it to run rampant ever since.  The damage that has been done will not be solved easily or quickly, and the problems have already been festering for five years.  These guys are very good at killing and I fear what is coming.

[Bigun]

Concur again.  The way to prevent another suicide attack is not to allow it to happen in the first place.  "Leading from behind" is not a defense plan.  It is a display of weakness that people who do not care about human life interpret as an invitation to kill.

The problem is that when Obama pulled out of the World Leadership role in 2009 he not only created a power vacuum he pulled the cork out of the bottle that had contained Islamic extremism and has allowed it to run rampant ever since.  The damage that has been done will not be solved easily or quickly, and the problems have already been festering for five years.  These guys are very good at killing and I fear what is coming.

B I N G O ! ! !