Here’s how that goes before the quarter, by deciders less close to the situation on the ground, or whose own job performance evaluation depends on the situation

Here’s how that goes before the quarter, by deciders less close to the situation on the ground, or whose own job performance evaluation depends on the situation not being as dire: “You’re being alarmist. Don’t ask us to deploy troops, it’s not like Americans are going to actually storm their own Capitol.” And then after the quarter, “OK, Americans didn’t storm the Inauguration, but are you sure that’s because you so-called mitigated the risk with 20K troops? All this money, no attack, maybe we should spend that money on teachers instead of troops.” In this space, lack of negative outcomes breeds contempt for the mitigation. (Hmmm...) Interestingly, in the very long long run, that might even be right, as better education on civics is solving the problem at the left, earlier in the production line. So now you have a new problem, which is to convince those deciders not close to the problem and disinterested in openly admitting gaps, that they need to both spend on the 20K troops now, and double down on teachers for a payoff 10 years from now, so that after that they don’t have to spend on the troops... best luck.