[x-factor]

I don't have a dog in the LE vs CT fight, but I think there's another question that bears asking.

Lets say we were to enact TS's plan and raise three domestic CT elements: one on the East Coast, one of the West Coast, and one in the Midwest.

(For what its worth (and TS's opinion is certainly more expert than mine), I think three is a pretty conservative estimate for country-wide coverage thats responsive on the kinds of timelines we're talking about. I think you'd need at least another one specifically devoted to the Philly-NYC-Boston "megacity," but thats not really important to my question.)

Point being, with three standing units you're pulling a fair number highly qualified operators (at least 100 by my count) plus all the specialized support elements (intel, air, training, etc) and the funding that goes with them out of the offensive side of the war on terror. Thats a lot of resources for a threat that may never come to pass and for one that, even if it does, may still have come and gone before these elements arrive on scene to take the handoff from local LE.

Plus, if you publicize the capability, which you're going to have to do to get the legislation and funding for it you're giving away a lot of your benefit. Its the kind of thing that can be effectively counter-planned by an aggressor who knows what he's doing.

So my question is...even if we all agreed that a standing domestic CT unit is the ideal solution, is it a realistic one given resource constraints? Would you get a better return on your investment by raising these units or by beefing up overseas CT efforts?