In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:27:44 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
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.

So why not get him to delegate the authority here, given that this is a
fleeting target and the time taken to beg for permission to fire may be
enough to let bin-Laden escape?

Or is it easier to back off, avoid a difficult mission and then blame
everything on that nasty 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.

The phrase "mute insubordination" comes to mind.

"We did exactly what we were told. Yes, we knew it would fail and it was
silly. No, we didn't tell the boss, we don't like the boss. So it's all
his fault."

When the CinC is wrong, part of the job is to tell him so. No, it's not
easy.

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.

Wah.

Did nobody - did *not one person* - have the balls to point out that
this was a bad idea against a fleeting target?

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

I'm not surprised. I'd hate to serve in a military more interested in
scoring political points off its Commander in Chief, than in doing its
job.

--
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