![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 23:49:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: 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? They tried. He refused to delegate the authority. 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. It is even harder when he refuses to listen. The fact of the matter is that they did the best they could within the orders they were given. 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? Yes. But it did not do any good. 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. Do you have any factual basis for that accusation? -- There can be no triumph without loss. No victory without suffering. No freedom without sacrifice. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentagon planning Navy buildup as 'warning to Iran' | AirRaid | Naval Aviation | 17 | January 4th 07 06:08 PM |
PENTAGON CONSIDERING MILITARY BUILD UP AGAINST IRAN (Scroll down to comments section - see page 2 of the comments section as well): | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 19th 06 08:37 PM |
US spells out plan to bomb Iran (for Israel): | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 18th 06 08:47 AM |
Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent/Ex-Pentagon man gets 12 years in AIPAC case | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | January 21st 06 07:02 AM |
N. Korea--Iran Plan Nuke/Missile Deal | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 6th 03 11:34 AM |