Some war on terror.
A sneak attack is another tactic in conflicts. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor caused the US to go to war. Did we declare a war against sneak attacks? Of course not, we declared a war against the people who executed the sneak attack.
While I agree completely with your view that the war against barbaric 'religiously'-inspired fanatics is being horribly mismanaged, I said nothing whatever about shutting down cell phone towers. It seems likely that even this incompetent 'war' effort would be able to figure out that shutting down towers would be both called for and effective in disrupting enemy comms. Don't know how to compute the cost to the economy, though. I should think that a universal shutdown nationwide would be far too costly, and in any case would have little more marginal impact against enemy comms than a selective shutdown (every tower within, say, 50 miles of Dearbornistan, for instance, and similar areas).
As to protecting mosques, **assuming** another outrage on the order of 9/11, I'll stand by my earlier comment and, as noted, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I consider, whether correctly or not, that the level of rage of the citizens at large after a second atrocity will be simply incalculable, that there will be an enormous number of instances of vigilantism, and that a sizeable percentage of soldiers, upon being ordered to protect mosques, will simply refuse the order as unlawful.
Such an order would indeed be unlawful in my view; what could be a clearer example of 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy, not to mention violation of Posse Comitatus? Granted, some a&&hole judge or another might not see it that way, but any soldier refusing an order as described would have little to fear.
The lawyers will tie up such cases for years and years, because such cases will be brutally difficult to prosecute. Does the gov't try them under UCMJ? Don't think so; the effect on morale servicewide would be nearly indescribable, and enlistments and reups would FAPP cease. Potential soldiers, as well as those now serving, will reason -- and rightly so -- as follows: 'Why should I join/stay in an organisation that will be/is ordering me to protect the people who are killing my fellow Americans, and will attempt to brand me as a felon if I refuse to do so?'
All right, you (the hypothetical 'you', not your actual self) say, then prosecute the disobedient soldier in civilian courts. I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but, aside from the dubious legality of such an approach, where would the prosecution expect to find 12 citizens to convict the soldier of disobedience or dereliction? Defense counsel will be able to exclude **every** islamic from jury pools, for cause. This process will be childishly simple, too: A) simply ask whether the potential venireman follows the teachings of al-Quran, then B) cite numerous passages from al-Quran, the ones we've seen here on FR dozens of times, showing that the potential venireman is untrustworthy at law ('taqqiyeh', sp?), predisposed against those who fail to protect his cult, and predisposed toward the commission of assorted unlawful acts against fellow citizens, aka 'infidels'.
Returning to cell phones for a moment, it would seem to me to be a straightforward matter, speaking technically, to insert an ID into a cell phone's carrier wave and reprogram cell towers to simply refuse to process any calls w/o such an ID. Probably cost quite a bit, but well worth it, wouldn't you say?
FR has lots of EEs and tech mavens, I wounder what their comments would be. One of a number of points that I can't figure out about such an attempt is whether or not the insertion of a carrier ID (if it doesn't already exist, of course) would violate one or another protocol.
FReegards to you!