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

In message , Tankfixer
writes
In article ,
mumbled
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?

I understand they had a plan to put Rangers/SOF on the ground and snatch
him.

But since people might get hurt....

Cuts both ways. Reading "Bush at War", one thing that leapt out was how
difficult it was to actually get any sort of operation going in
Afghanistan: sending SOF in, knives clenched in their teeth, is all very
well until they have casualties that need extracting, or something goes
wrong somewhere in the plan.

"It was bedrock doctrine with Shelton and most military officers that
combat operations could not commence without full search and rescue. The
CSAR was the lifeline for those who flew combat missions and there was a
presumption that the military brass would go all out to ensure it was in
place."

--
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

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 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."

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.

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

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?

All of the ones where he has not delegated the authority.


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?

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.

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.

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


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