Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[Bill Moore]

What I would now say (having been corrected) is that whether they kill a lot of people or not, they are then police problems, not military problems. No war needs to be launched to stop such attacks and no war can do anything about them.

I can understand the logic behind this statement, but I am not entirely convinced this is true. I definitely agree there is no requirement for large military forces to occupy foreign lands to fight terrorism, but I think there is still a major (I would argue a critical) role for intelligence and special operations forces to continue waging a war against these groups in the shadows. That is sustainable long term (from the cost perspective) and I think ultimately more effective. The example given for this thread was a homegrown threat that clearly was a police problem, but his mentor Anwar Awlaki was an intelligence/SOF problem, as are many others who plan and inspire operations against the U.S. from afar. The police can only act defensively, which doesn't give us much depth when it comes to defense. I think an offensive element for this conflict is critical.

[tequila]

In Jose Pimental Terror Case, FBI Worries Over Informer

The suspect had little money to speak of, was unable to pay his cellphone bill and scrounged for money to buy the drill bits that court papers said he required to make his pipe bombs. Initially, he had trouble drilling the small holes that needed to be made in the metal tubes.

The suspect, Jose Pimentel, according to several people briefed on the case, would seek help from a neighbor in Upper Manhattan as well as a confidential informer. That informer provided companionship and a staging area so Mr. Pimentel, a Muslim convert, could build three pipe bombs while the Intelligence Division of the New York Police Department built its case ...

Mr. Pimentel, 27, who lived with his uncle in the Hamilton Heights neighborhood after his mother threw him out recently, appears to be unstable, according to several of the people briefed on the case, three of whom said he had tried to circumcise himself ...

In the task force, investigators were concerned that the case raised some entrapment questions, two people said. They added that some investigators wondered whether Mr. Pimentel had the even small amount of money or technical know-how necessary to produce a pipe bomb on his own, had he not received help from the informer ...

There is a practical advantage to bringing the case in New York State court: state prosecutors said they were allowed to charge Mr. Pimentel with a conspiracy, even if he were acting with just the informant; federal law does not permit charging such a conspiracy.

[omarali50]

OK, so we may be converging to the same points.
1. A state that clearly sponsors terrorist groups would face at least the possibility of war, if other means don't work. But other means can probably work against most states except a couple of big powers (if you include blockade and such-like in other means) as long as "the international community" knows what it wants and why?
2. A group that operates without direct state support still lives in some state (like Awlaki in Yemen). Either that state takes care of him (which may take us to 1 if they don't) or if they don't have the capacity, then someone or something (these days, thing more likely than one) goes and blows him up? Is that what you are saying?
3. In both cases, occupation is not the first or even the tenth choice.

So what to do about occupations already in progress?
and what if other considerations set aside 1 and 2?
Does the US still occupy countries to get oil or bases or copper mines (or better terms for United Fruit)? This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious. Coming from a left-liberal universe, we were always exposed to the idea that those are primary goals in most interventions. Some (like the United Fruit business) obviously happened, but maybe events in small banana republics in the home hemisphere were never typical of worldwide US actions (i.e., the Left used them for propaganda even where it was not remotely true). In any case, is that the case any longer? does the US ever intervene militarily for these reasons? and if so, how can it ever pass a cost-benefit analysis? and if not, then what was the thought process behind, say, the occupation of Iraq? Just one of those things that happen (as in "#### happens"). Perhaps because it IS profitable for a number of individuals and companies even if it is a huge loss for everyone else?
I personally lean more towards the last two sentences, but am genuinely open to being convinced otherwise.

[Stan]

The example given for this thread was a homegrown threat that clearly was a police problem, but his mentor Anwar Awlaki was an intelligence/SOF problem, as are many others who plan and inspire operations against the U.S. from afar. The police can only act defensively, which doesn't give us much depth when it comes to defense. I think an offensive element for this conflict is critical.

And at home under the guise of support to law enforcement ? Our military would have no problem protecting our borders and supporting our police.

I realize I'm a bit out in left field, but, what good is it to have our intel and military if they are not covering home plate ?

Short of martial law that is

[Bill Moore]

Stan,

If the military is required to protect the homeland by operating in the homeland it can do so (if they're directed to by the appropriate authorities), but the current threat sure as heck doesn't require that and it is unlikely that this particular group will ever require augmenting the police with the military again in the near term with the possible of exception of deploying troops to airports in reaction (not to prevent) a successful attack. I think the local police and feds can handle most of the issues. For the ones they can't they can always ask for help.