This discussion has been ongoing in security for a couple of decades. The reason we didn't get traction on fixing it was because our approach to mitigating risk

This discussion has been ongoing in security for a couple of decades. The reason we didn't get traction on fixing it was because our approach to mitigating risk interfered with opportunity and growth. Imo, the U.S. is losing its place in the world because it can't assert itself the way it used to, as a direct consequence of there being zero-cost to an adversary retaliating by creating domestic civil unrest using metro area power outages and water system compromises from cyber attacks. Think Texas power outages last month, but longer, and in LA, NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, or a version of last years riot season with blackouts. It's harder to mobilize an army, let alone a draft, when your people are rioting and looting for lack of basic services. The good news is we won't see another personnel heavy gulf war or vietnam again, but the terrible news is adversaries know it's almost democratically impossible for the U.S. to fight a total ground war anymore and this will embolden regional border conflicts where raw numbers of infantry soldiers are an advantage. See China's current aggression in international waters and on its border with India as an example where there is a hard ceiling on the level of U.S. intervention because cyber has unbalanced the risk/reward. Perhaps its only option is to keep escalating aggression and putting pressure on adversaries so they don't have the attention to devote to their regional ambitions, where the role changes from global cop, to a global "broken windows" and "stop and frisk" policing policy.