Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for attacking Iran

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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.




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

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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 not a very robust solution...

--
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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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 not a very robust solution...


Actually, the critical reader would glean that all the above suggests is
that Colin Campbell hates Bill Clinton. One would have hoped for a more
intelligent reasoned response.

- nil

"La N" wrote in message
news:QZWDi.21856$Pd4.2339@edtnps82...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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 not a very robust solution...


Actually, the critical reader would glean that all the above suggests is
that Colin Campbell hates Bill Clinton. One would have hoped for a more
intelligent reasoned response.



Anyway, further to this ... wasn't that the time when Clinton's detractors
were screaming "wag the dog"??? IOW they were claiming that he was looking
at military options to detract from the Paula Jones issue.

- nil

In article S0XDi.21857$Pd4.7413@edtnps82,
mumbled

"La N" wrote in message
news:QZWDi.21856$Pd4.2339@edtnps82...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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 not a very robust solution...


Actually, the critical reader would glean that all the above suggests is
that Colin Campbell hates Bill Clinton. One would have hoped for a more
intelligent reasoned response.



Anyway, further to this ... wasn't that the time when Clinton's detractors
were screaming "wag the dog"??? IOW they were claiming that he was looking
at military options to detract from the Paula Jones issue.

If you don't think it was relevant then why bring it up ?


--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:22:17 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article S0XDi.21857$Pd4.7413@edtnps82,
mumbled

"La N" wrote in message
news:QZWDi.21856$Pd4.2339@edtnps82...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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 not a very robust solution...


Actually, the critical reader would glean that all the above suggests is
that Colin Campbell hates Bill Clinton. One would have hoped for a more
intelligent reasoned response.



Anyway, further to this ... wasn't that the time when Clinton's detractors
were screaming "wag the dog"??? IOW they were claiming that he was looking
at military options to detract from the Paula Jones issue.

If you don't think it was relevant then why bring it up ?

The sad thing is that myself and militia broke up over two years ago
and she still has not gotten over it.



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

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:20:53 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

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

Hopefully, things work in a similar manner in your country.



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

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?

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?

Hopefully, things work in a similar manner in your country.

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




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

--
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

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

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?

Simply put, yes.

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?

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

Hopefully, things work in a similar manner in your country.

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).

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.

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

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?

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.

(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.)

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?

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?

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

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

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)

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?

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? 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

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.

--
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