On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:27:44 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:20:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
The problem was that by the time the basketball game ended their
chance to get him had passed.

They had options, but when they had the chance - they could not pry
Clinton away from the TV set.

You mean your time-sensitive targeting is entirely dependent on your
President's personal habits?

That is the way this sort of thing works in a democracy.

What, all military decisions require on-the-spot signoff by the
Commander in Chief?

All of the ones where he has not delegated the authority.


The military
implements policy and does not attack other nations unless ordered to
by the President.

Except that this scenario describes enough surveillance and intelligence
to have a decent confidence of bin-Laden's whereabouts and movement, and
sufficient military assets in place to make a credible effort at killing
him.

All that effort and nobody sorted out delegation?

The military does what the President says. If the President refused
to delegate that sort of decision, then the military has to abide by
that decision.

This all boils down to the fact that the military follows the polices
set by the President. If he has stated that he has to give approval
for certain types of operations then the military has to wait on his
decision.

What we have here is an example of why military morale was so poor
during the Clinton years.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.