Counter-Terror. Which is easier than, say, COIN (COunter-INsurgency), which requires work, resources, and hard (which is to say, automatically unpopular) decisions.
I don't like how the donors are so close to the media in America. I watch foreign news sources and they have more rounded coverage, and for a country so engaged in the international affairs and getting involved in other countries, American news networks provide little coverage and discussion on international issues. When international stories are brought up, it's usually done so in an inflammatory way that provokes certain Americans wanting military intervention.
I think you've been watching too much FOX, if that's the case. I wholeheartedly agree American media's coverage of foreign events is atrocious - but that is because Americans by-and-large aren't interested in what happens overseas, and it's a vicious ratings war - not due to some kind of cabal.
Example: During the W administration, news media covered every major attack in Iraq breathlessly, even inventing new standards ("The bloodiest day since almost two weeks ago, Tom. Gosh, Sally, seems like it's getting worse over there.") because that's what the media wanted to cover (George Bush Bad. Brave Democrats Who Oppose Killing Because War Is Mean Good.), and there was a strong domestic audience who wanted to be told that the war was bad and going badly.
During Obama's tenure, reporting on the war dropped off the face of the planet. Republicans, generally, weren't keen to get their anti-war on, and Democrats didn't want to hear bad things about the Administration, so there wasn't a domestic audience for War-Is-Bad stories (which really write themselves, especially when every day is at
least the bloodiest day since yesterday), and the media was uncomfortable looking too hard at it because - really - weren't the Intelligent People now in charge, and stuff? I'm sure it's all fine. Let's see if there is a stupid Tea Partier out there willing to open their mouth on camera.
As for preventing another 911, that is very shortsighted.
Perhaps. That doesn't make it not important.
When, for example, someone is actively shooting at you, the decisions you make are typically focused on the next couple of seconds or minutes at best - but those are a
very important couple of seconds or minutes, as they sort of determine the degree to which you will later be able to make decisions about days or years. Defeating EXOPS may be a short-sighted activity, but it's as important as the short-sighted nurses in an ER saving a patient's life from a gunshot wound to the gut.
America has other interests in Syria than preventing 911, and America has other interests elsewhere. We are also being hacked, so cyber security is becoming a major concern, more than it was on the day 911. To say our military is focused on preventing a terror attack, well, I am not buying it. Did you really think that's what going into Iraq was about?
Oh. Well, I happen to have lived my entire adult life in and around the military, and I can assure you, CT is very much indeed a major focus. Why do you think SOCOM was expanding when the rest of DOD was facing cuts? It wasn't because they have the most stylish unit patches. It's absolutely true that cyber security is far more important now than it was on 9/11 (and it is true that, despite large investments being made, we are not really on a proper security footing there at
all), but even with the renewed emphasis on nation-state actors and near-peer conflict, CT remains a huge operational focus.
Or into a moving vehicle, if you can.
