In message , Bill Kambic
writes
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 23:40:01 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
So if PFC Leroy-Joe Rodriguez, doing top cover for a vehicle patrol in
Sadr City, sees someone pointing an RPG at him he has to contact
Washington and ask for Presidential authorisation before he's allowed to
fire his weapon?

Now you're being silly.

No, you're answering my question.

The PFC in question will act IAW with his
Rules of Engagement. THOSE were promulgated by higher authority and
could have come straight from the White House.

So why not in this case?

That's not the way we do business, and I don't *think* it's how the US
does business, but I could be wrong.

Yes, in this case you are.

I *am* wrong? I thought the US was able to delegate the right to open
fire downwards. Am I incorrect?

(Apart from anything else, the recent unfortunate incident in
Afghanistan - several UK KIA from a US F-15's ordnance - gets a nasty
political dimension if you're seriously telling me that the President of
the United States personally signed off on the decision to release that
weapon. I'm not sure that you are.)

Again, the pilot of an armed aircraft has rules he operates by. If he
screws up he might have committed a crime; he might have just made a
tragic mistake.

So we accept that this is another case where it's not compulsory to call
Washington and get Presidential approval for the use of armed force,
correct? Again, the US military demonstrates that it understands
delegation... apart, apparently, from when it chooses not to.

No, it isn't, in this case. Is this an operation to locate, confirm and
eradicate Osama bin-Laden or not?

If the President (or an officer acting at his direction) says "yes"
then that's the answer.

So who is "the officer acting at his discretion"? This tale has the
President and only the President holding everything tight. Did _nobody_
think this was a bad plan? Or was it more important to show up the CinC
than to achieve the mission?

Did nobody stop to consider "what if the President is not immediately
available?" If WJC won't look away from his TV, how about the
Vice-President? Is the President the absolute one-and-only person able
to make this decision, and must it be left this late when the
opportunity is fleeting?

Somebody might be willing to take the shot (and the responsibility).
If he gets the bad guy with no collateral damage he'll get a medal (on
the time honored military principle that It's Always Easier To Get
Forgiveness Than Permission.

If he kills a bunch of cilvilians and misses the bad guy he'll likely
get court-marialed.

If he gets the bad guy and a bunch of civilians you won't hear many
details until the New York Once Upon A Times get's hold of it.

Yet what we have here is a military chain sitting with their thumbs
jammed up their posterior sphincters, wailing that no matter how
high-value the target they can't do a _thing_ until the basketball game
finishes and the President deigns to speak with them again. (While
simultaneously complaining that the President doesn't love and respect
them) There is no alternative, there is no pre-delegation, there is no
"if approver #1 unavailable then speak to #2, if #2 cannot be reached
speak to #3"...

It sounds much more like post-failure arse-covering than a realistic
after-action report. "Gee whiz, we absolutely could have taken out
bin-Laden for sure if only that nasty President had let us..."

If this mission is so important, why is nobody trying to make it happen?

I dunno. I'm not in ithat loop.

Guess. Would *you* make it happen if you were in that loop?

Which brings its own set of problems: wasn't this the period where
Clinton was being warned that members of his own military intended to
murder him given the chance? (Some Southern senator warning him off
visiting bases in the region, IIRC)

I never heard that. Likely it's PR from the DNC.

Political exaggeration on both sides (and I tired quickly of wading
through Google to find the source - if I'm going to defend Slick Willy I
need to save these points) is likely but, I have to say, you could not
find many serving military folks with anything good to say about WJC
from 1995 (when I jumped into Usenet) to when he left office or
thereafter. Doubtless muchly deserved... but it didn't breed confidence
that he was getting good advice.

If the US military is meant to impartially serve its commander-in-chief
then it _really_ failed under Clinton. He may well have deserved it...
but you don't get to pick and choose "this CinC is a nasty piece of work
undeserving of our respect" without triggering a civil war.


When the military is as open in expressing its contempt and disdain for
its elected leader as that, are you *really* surprised that you don't
occupy a close place in his heart or high regard in his mind?

Well, I suspect that this has happened before and will happen again.
It's not a question of "love" or even "respect." It's a question of
obedience and honoring an oath.

Looking in from another country, I see a polarisation and an overt
hatred which leaves me wondering whether that oath was fulfilled. Again,
did "the military" really try to take out bin-Laden? Or was it more
convenient to defer a difficult task that might not be well supported?

Then that suggests Iran-Contra was a bad move, correct?

No, Sir, it says it was an unlawful move.

So what does it gain for the US?

It's a really stupid plan, from the point of view of the RN ships on the
Armilla Patrol trying to get tankers in and out of the Arabian Gulf.
That's my direct involvement (I work with gentlemen who were in the area
at the time and have very strong opinions).

We want Iraq to hold out against Iran's religious fundamentalism...
except that the US is selling serious military hardware to Iran so they
can fight better against Iraq. Just WTF is going on and why are we
sending ships to the Arabian Gulf when there are other jobs for them to
do?

From here, it looks like decisions normally delegated down as far as
aircraft cockpits are suddenly being booted up to the White House. At
best it sounds like an excuse, at worst it looks like invention or even
insubordination.

Mileage may vary, of course, and I'm just amazed to find myself
defending Bill Clinton.

Ever since the invention of the telegraph we've seen what ought to be
"tactical" decisions elevated to "matters of state." It's alleged
that during VietNam the President would sit in bed drinking coffee and
making target selections from lists provided to him. I don't know if
that is true, but I do know that the rules of engagement were not
calculated to lead to a successful air campaign.

At the end of the day we are left with Chairman Mao's observation that
"war is politics by other means." (I've heard that this is not really
original with the Chariman. ;-) ).

Clausewitz, at the very least (it's a little more complex in translation
than that) but probably predates him.

So if you take a step that's
outside your rules of engagement and pull it off with no adverse
consequences than you'll be a hero; if not you'll be the "goat."

Which is kind of my point. Do you want to win? Or do you hate your boss?

If you want to win, then when El Presidente can't be distracted from his
television you fire and plead for forgiveness.

If you want to score political points, you blame El Presidente for
"everything was perfect, perfect I tell you!" and not being allowed to
fire.

The lowliest British Army officer-cadet of the late 1980s was hit with a
scenario where you couldn't ask "the boss" what to do but had to choose
between the explicit orders you had been given, and "commander's intent"
of what he _wanted_ to do. If you discover the facts on the ground have
changed, do you blindly obey outdated orders or do you ask "what would
my Guvnor want me to do if he was here now?"


But you answer my question - it seems nobody was willing to say "the
Boss wants this guy dead, the Boss told us to find him and kill him, the
Boss won't tell us to shoot until the basketball game is over and
that'll be too late... shoot now and we can tell the Boss how well he
did "

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk