Reed, this appears ready for a robust academic debate. I thought I would point out a few things that you used as examples. 911 was not the first attack on the US homeland with asymmetric forces. We have had major events before, although granted, perhaps not within the living memory of those now alive. German saboteurs were dramatically successful on the East Coast prior to WWII. Often forgotten is that the 911 WTO attack was actually the second attempt (this one was hugely successful) to take down the WTO. There was also evidence that ‘distance’ did defeat synchronization and execution of a secondary attack on the West Coast.

Wouldn’t you say that what we are seeing is more of a recycling and echo of the Anarchists in Europe? Small cells, no connection to a real C2, with very general mission statements? Further, you mentioned all the costs at forward projection, but there are definite returns from forward basing. There is no surge cost in moving the response force forward. Further, the response force would be mission ready immediately and not have to pay costs in travel time, resting from travel,and could move quickly without a telltale buildup. Moreover, instead of paying foreign assistance and whatever other moneys we pay for influence, we have lots of troops and families who inject money into their economy and humanize Americans on a long term basis to others and vice versa — that is vital and we ignore that at our peril when we turtle up and become isolationist.