Posted on Jul 18, 2015
Do you agree with the assessment that ISIS is not a 'clear and present danger' to the United States?
9.23K
49
28
6
6
0
Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, Obama's nomination to be the Pentagon's No. 2, echoed the testimony last week by Gen. Joseph Dunford in naming Russia as the main national security threat to the U.S., while also saying ISIS "does not threaten us at home."
"I would put the threats to this nation in the following order: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and all of the organizations that have grown around ideology that was articulated by al Qaeda," Selva said.
Selva, head of U.S. Transportation Command, was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to become vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, succeeding the retiring Adm. James "Sandy" Winnefeld.
Sen. John McCain, the SASC chairman, seemed surprised at the list and asked Selva why he didn't rank ISIS as a threat to the homeland.
Selva said that ISIS "does not present a clear and present threat to our homeland and to our nation. It is a threat we must deal with," he said, but "it does not threaten us at home" or present an existential threat as Russia does with nuclear weapons.
When asked about the threat of "lone wolves" inspired by ISIS, Selva said they also "do not present an existential threat to the security of our nation."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/14/pentagon-no-2-says-isis-not-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-us.html
"I would put the threats to this nation in the following order: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and all of the organizations that have grown around ideology that was articulated by al Qaeda," Selva said.
Selva, head of U.S. Transportation Command, was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to become vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, succeeding the retiring Adm. James "Sandy" Winnefeld.
Sen. John McCain, the SASC chairman, seemed surprised at the list and asked Selva why he didn't rank ISIS as a threat to the homeland.
Selva said that ISIS "does not present a clear and present threat to our homeland and to our nation. It is a threat we must deal with," he said, but "it does not threaten us at home" or present an existential threat as Russia does with nuclear weapons.
When asked about the threat of "lone wolves" inspired by ISIS, Selva said they also "do not present an existential threat to the security of our nation."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/14/pentagon-no-2-says-isis-not-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-us.html
ISIS
War on Terror
National Security
Threat
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 21
9
9
0
General Selva clearly thinks they are a threat. However, he says they are not an existential threat. All he is saying is Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are larger threats to national security. They have or are closer to the capability of causing an existential crisis in the US than is IS or AQ. I would urge my fellow RallyPointers not to confuse existential national security threats with individual level threats. Sure, IS has killed more Americans than Russia has lately. However, Russia could nuke the West Coast into oblivion, IS cannot.
(9)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
Great analogy! Like the way you put it....and I also think the General has to watch what he says....not to upset the Potus.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Khanh Pham
I want to add, that Russia is not bent on nuking the west coast or any nuclear war. Putin is like 60billions in wealth. Businessman like that are not really into war, they are into making money. Nuclear war doesnt leave much for profit.
being around americans and non american, I would like you to consider that American are currently the greatest threats to the world. With its attitude and nuclear capabilities.
being around americans and non american, I would like you to consider that American are currently the greatest threats to the world. With its attitude and nuclear capabilities.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I think MAJ(P) (Join to see) hit it right on the nose. To expand, it all comes down to clear definitions, clear thinking, and intelligent prioritization of resources. To say that something isn't the WORST problem is different from saying it isn't a problem.
There are a number of frames for this type of threat at the strategic level, and the general is basically saying that ISIS doesn't make the top two rungs (Existential/Survival or Vital) on one of them.
The good old fashioned risk assessment will demonstrate the core idea. What is the probability that ISIS will do bad things targeting America? What will be the impact if they do said bad things? When determining the impact rating, consider that some threats have "end all human life on earth" as an outcome....That should inform your assessment of what a "catastrophic" outcome is.
Now do that for EVERY threat out there and rank them 1 to N.
Now look at the resources (blood and treasure) you have at your disposal, and allocate them across all the just rated risks. Even just focusing on risk mitigation, you will quickly find that you don’t have enough resources to bring everything down to “low”, let alone “none.”
Our leadership owes us a clear statement of its prioritization of the largest risks the nation faces, which will in turn drive policy, planning, and future force shaping.
In this instance (though nobody asked me), I agree with the prioritization. What happened last week sucks, but it does not compare to either thermonuclear war or a hot WWIII.
There are a number of frames for this type of threat at the strategic level, and the general is basically saying that ISIS doesn't make the top two rungs (Existential/Survival or Vital) on one of them.
The good old fashioned risk assessment will demonstrate the core idea. What is the probability that ISIS will do bad things targeting America? What will be the impact if they do said bad things? When determining the impact rating, consider that some threats have "end all human life on earth" as an outcome....That should inform your assessment of what a "catastrophic" outcome is.
Now do that for EVERY threat out there and rank them 1 to N.
Now look at the resources (blood and treasure) you have at your disposal, and allocate them across all the just rated risks. Even just focusing on risk mitigation, you will quickly find that you don’t have enough resources to bring everything down to “low”, let alone “none.”
Our leadership owes us a clear statement of its prioritization of the largest risks the nation faces, which will in turn drive policy, planning, and future force shaping.
In this instance (though nobody asked me), I agree with the prioritization. What happened last week sucks, but it does not compare to either thermonuclear war or a hot WWIII.
(6)
(0)
MAJ(P) (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking Sir, clearly articulated! Thanks for bringing that level insight.
(3)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Great assessment MAJ(P) (Join to see) and COL Vincent Stoneking --- thanks, much appreciated!
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Just my 2pence but seems like another example of a senior leader who compromises his integrity by following the WH party line.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google