"The white papers and strategy papers concede that the persistent adversary that is well funded will get into your system."
The way it was sold to investors was that you had to have physical access to the machine to break into it. That there were no back doors for sovereigns.
If a well-funded person can access your pc via the network, and indeed if there are back doors in the system, TC has been missold.
And that being the case, enterprise resistance makes sense. Why put up with the restrictions if one doesn't even get robust security?
As regards your answer about the DoD, personally I find it unimpressive. If a TC network isn't secured against the Chinese and the Iranians, then the main reason for adopting TC is removed.
The TC philosophy doesn't make much sense as swiss cheese.
| 
