Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for attacking Iran

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 23:40:01 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Bill Kambic
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?

Simply put, yes.

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. 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.

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.

(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.

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?

There's no need to sort out anything. The chain of command is clear.

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.

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.

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

I dunno. I'm not in ithat loop.

It definitely smacks of an after-the-fact wah rather than a credible
event, to be blunt.

You might be right.

I rather hope not - we prefer "Mission Command" to "Do absolutely
nothing without Downing Street's approval in quadruplicate".

Well, I too sometimes prefer to leave decisions to the professionals.
But that carries with it it's own set of problems. To call Clinton
Era military policy "risk adverse" would be to make one othe most
profound understatements of all time. But our Constitution sets out
the President as CinC and we take an oath to uphold that Constitution
and to obey the orders of said President (even if he's lying, craven,
*******'s whoreson).

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.

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.

And when somebody DOES do as you suggest we have something like
Iran-Contra. No matter how this might be viewed in other quarters it
was a truly renegade operation in violation of Federal law.

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

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

Not that it's
hard to spot: just what suggested that the mad mullahs of Tehran would
be grateful, helpful or friendly allies, especially since the US was
merely replenishing the arms stocks they were using against Iraq, who we
were vigorously supporting as our bastion against the expansion of
radical Shi'a Islam in the region... (it's a good "what were they
thinking?" question with no good answer yet) Op PREYING MANTIS was
textbook naval warfare and much admired, but hardly indicative of
friendly trusting relations between the US and the Iranians - so why
were you helping them tool up and rearm?


But I'd offer this scenario. Let's assume Colin is correct, and that
having committed serious resources to finding, identifying and
confirming Osama bin-Laden, he could suddenly be killed with a word on
the radio, a push of the button, pick your movie cliche, though the
opportunity will be short. The President refuses to turn away from his
basketball game, contemptuously dismisses his uniformed lackeys when
they approach him, sets all that work at naught.

Now, me? I'd say "take the shot" and explain to the President that I'd
verbally briefed him about this, that we would get one chance, and that
I could offer him a veto over the final step, and I'd *offered* him that
veto and he'd refused it so I was left to assume his consent and act
accordingly... and so it goes. But that's hindsight from a different
country, and I'm a good enough engineer to get another job if I need
one: this gives me a certain confidence in challenging bull**** when I
see it

See above for possible outcomes. :-)

I'm sadly more confident that the UK response - and the US probably has
similar problems - ties up in knots about demanding collateral damage
prediction, legal signoff, and other grief to defend against allegations
of dropping baby-seeking cluster bombs with depleted-uranium
napalm-filled warheads on innocent civilians... but my cynicism usually
overrides my politics. (And you can do a lot of that planning in
advance, even if it does keep the staff busy - you shouldn't have joined
if you can't take a joke. Good planning and a glum disposition can
prepare you for a lot.)

We can argue the wisdom of tying ourselves into legal knots, but the
legality of the system is beyond question.

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. ;-) ). 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."