Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for attacking Iran

[AirRaid[_1_]]

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
confront Iran "before it is too late".
Related Links

One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
"significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
"They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
have practised deception."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
coalition must tackle".

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

[Matt[_1_]]

On Sep 2, 1:13 pm, AirRaid > wrote:
> Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
> Sarah Baxter, Washington
>



People never stop posting this - over and over for years now, we've
had stories Bush will attack Iran. When it never happens, reporters
and posters seems to just change the predicted dates and publish the
claims again with some fresh details. All this despite the utter
impossibility of it. The idea our stretched-beyond-exhaustion
military logistics system could support the deployment of hundreds of
combat planes to the area and the sustainment of a huge air campaign
is absurd. Is there a contingency plan if an attack on Iran was
deemed necessary? Well, it's the military's job to have a contingency
plan for all kinds of scenarios. But we have exhausted our planes,
our supplies of guided munitions, our people, and our logistics with
the Iraq/Afghan wars.
Unless Iran actually attacks in force, the chance this will happen is
absolutely zero.

ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THE PERSONAL OPINION OF THE AUTHOR

[David Casey]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:13:26 -0700, AirRaid wrote:

> Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
> Sarah Baxter, Washington
>
> The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
> targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
> capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
>
> Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
> Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
> for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
> about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.
>
> Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
> conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
> US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
> out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
> It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".
>
> President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
> accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
> nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
> confront Iran "before it is too late".
> Related Links
>
> One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
> administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
> he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
> security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
> sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
>
> The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
> "significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
> said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
> most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
> stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
> is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
>
> Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
> moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
> placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
> overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
>
> Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
> weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
> be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
>
> Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
> of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
> plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
> nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
> "They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
> have practised deception."
>
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
> administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
> But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
> Americans in Iraq.
>
> The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
> Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
> that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
> under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
> coalition must tackle".
>
> Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
> Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
> pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".
>
> It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
> Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
> involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
> would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
stuff. Nothing new here.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:37:32 GMT, David Casey
> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:13:26 -0700, AirRaid wrote:
>
>> Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
>> Sarah Baxter, Washington
>>
>> The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
>> targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
>> capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
>>
>> Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
>> Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
>> for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
>> about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.
>>
>> Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
>> conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
>> US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
>> out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
>> It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".
>>
>> President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
>> accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
>> nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
>> confront Iran "before it is too late".
>> Related Links
>>
>> One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
>> administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
>> he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
>> security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
>> sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
>>
>> The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
>> "significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
>> said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
>> most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
>> stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
>> is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
>>
>> Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
>> moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
>> placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
>> overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
>>
>> Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
>> weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
>> be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
>>
>> Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
>> of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
>> plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
>> nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
>> "They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
>> have practised deception."
>>
>> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
>> administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
>> But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
>> Americans in Iraq.
>>
>> The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
>> Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
>> that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
>> under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
>> coalition must tackle".
>>
>> Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
>> Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
>> pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".
>>
>> It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
>> Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
>> involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
>> would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
>
>The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
>planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
>stuff. Nothing new here.

So far these folks are 0 out of 27 for their predictions of an attack
on Iran.

The amazing thing is that they keep finding people gullible enough to
believe them.



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

[[email protected]]

Showdown Over Iran
We can stop the coming war with Iran - but concerned Americans must
act quickly:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11534
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attacking Iran Would be Madness and a Capital Crime:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/9631

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?:

http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern08312007.html

Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind
As Walt-Mearscheimer book appears, efforts to keep military option
open run counter to national mood

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14460

Will George Bush Bomb Iran?:

http://tinyurl.com/2bojvn

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New book challenges US support for Israel
NEW YORK: An upcoming book challenging whether diplomatic and military
support for Israel is in the best interests of the United States is
set to spark fresh debate on Washington's role in the Middle East.
"The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," written by two of the United
States' most influential political science professors, is set to hit
the bookshelves next Tuesday and promises to break the taboo on the
subject. Written by John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago
and Stephen Walt from Harvard, the book follows an article they
published last year that stirred impassioned debate by setting out a
similar position.
Their thesis is that US endorsement of Israel is not fully explained
by strategic or moral reasons, but by the pressure exerted by Jewish
lobbyists, Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives with
Zionist sympathies.
The result, according to the book, is an unbalanced US foreign policy
in the Middle East, the US invasion of Iraq, the threat of war with
Iran or Syria and a fragile security situation for the entire Western
world. "Israel is not the strategic asset to the United States that
many claim. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold
War, but it has become a growing liability now that the Cold War is
over," the authors said.
"Unconditional support for Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism
around the world, helped fuel America's terrorism problem, and
strained relations with other key allies in Europe, the Middle East,
and Asia," they added.
According to the two writers, "backing Israel's harsh treatment of the
Palestinians has reinforced Anti-Americanism around the world and
almost certainly helped terrorists recruit new followers."
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, described the
book as "an insidious, biased account of the Arab-Israeli conflict and
of the role of supporters of Israel in the US," in an interview with
AFP.
"Everything about American policy toward the conflict is presented in
exaggerated form, as if America is completely one-sided in support of
Israel and that those policies are simply the product of the Israel
lobby." He is countering Mearsheimer and Walt's book with his own
title: "The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish
Control," due out on the same day.
Mearsheimer and Walt highlight the three billion dollars in US
economic and military aid that Israel receives every year - more than
any other country. They also point to Washington's diplomatic support:
between 1972 and 2006, the United States vetoed 42 United Nations
Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, while
watering down many others under threat of veto. Foxman counters that
the special relationship works both ways and that the United States
has gained much out of its ally.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a public debate on the
issue planned for September and featuring Mearsheimer and Walt when
they were unable to schedule a time that Foxman could also manage.
In the conclusion of their book, Mearsheimer and Walt say that the
United States must change its policy towards Israel. "The United
States would be a better ally if its leaders could make support for
Israel more conditional and if they could give their Israeli
counterparts more candid advice without facing a backlash from the
Israel lobby." With just over a year until the 2008 US presidential
election, however, they said the issue was unlikely to even enter the
debate. afp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American
Jews to a Universalist Ethos:

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"
by Maccabee
Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 03:50:24 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is
planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of
Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft
while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that
all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That
means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked
to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.
I asked her why she is telling me this.
Her answer was really amazing.
Maccabee's diary :: ::
She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. She had
served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend
knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training
position on a supercarrier. She used the reference and the information
and applied for a transfer to the United States Navy. Since she had
experience landing F-18Cs and Cobra Gunships, and an unblemished
combat record, she was ratcheted into the job, successfully changing
from the Marines to the Navy. Her role is still aligned with the
Marines since she generally is assigned to liason with the Marine
units deploying off her carrier group.
Like most Marines and former Marines, she is largely apolitical. The
fact is, most Marines are trigger pullers and most trigger pullers
could care less who the President is. They simply want to be the tip
of the sword when it comes to defending the country. She voted once in
her life and otherwise was always in some forward post on the water
during election season.
Something is wrong with the Navy and the Marines in her view. Always
ready to go in harms way, Marines rarely ever question unless it's a
matter of tactics or honor. But something seems awry. Junior and
senior officers are starting to grumble, roll their eyes in the
hallways. The strain of deployments is beginning to hit every jot and
tittle of the Marines and it's beginning to seep into the daily
conversation of Marines and Naval officers in command decision.
"I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said.
"But we're all just waiting for this administration to end. Things
that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen
outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a
say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come
down from the mountaintop and there's no questioning. In fact, there
is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander
disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been
replaced. That's really weird. It's also really weird because everyone
who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging
a massive attack on Iran."
"We're not stupid. Most of the members of the fleet read well enough
to know what is going on world-wise. We also realize that anyone who
has any doubts is in danger of having a long military career yanked
out from under them. Keep in mind that most of the people I serve with
are happy to be a part of the global war on terror. It's just that the
touch points are what we see since we are the ones out here who are
supposedly implementing this grand strategy. But when you liason with
administration officials who don't know that Iranians don't speak
Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, then you start having
second thoughts about whether these Administration officials are even
competent."
I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.
"I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning
every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be
massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no
American will know when it happens until after it happens. And
whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have
to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in
a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret
attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to
tell it anyway."
I asked her why she was suddenly so cynical.
"I have become cynical only recently. I also don't believe anyone will
be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor. He
will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will
fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to
cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea. Of
course many of us can give you the 4H Club lecture on democracy in the
Mid East. But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they
have a clear idea of what the goal of this strike is, your answer
would sound like something out of a think tank policy paper. But it's
not like Kosovo or when we relieved the tsunami victims. There
everyone could tell you in a sentence what we were here doing."
"That's what's missing. A real sense of purpose. What's missing is the
answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country
with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what
right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can't build a
nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the
man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking
a good question. In fact, the discussion actually followed afterwards
topside where someone in our group had to smoke a cigarette. The
discussion was intelligent but also in lowered voices. It's like we
aren't allowed to ask the questions that we always ask before combat.
It's almost as if the average seaman or soldier is doing all the
policy work."
She had to hang up. She left by telling me that she believes the
attack is a done deal. "It's only a matter of time before their orders
come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She
said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST." (Trapping is
the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier,
FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice
dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training).
She seemed lost. The first time in my life I have ever heard her sound
off rhythm, or unsure of why she is doing something. She knows that
there is something rotten in the Naval Command and she, like many of
her associates are just hoping that the election brings in someone
new, some new situation, or something.
"Yes. We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussion
that are going in is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I
see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays.
And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, his planned attack on Iran
More Shame, More Sorrow
By Paul Craig Roberts
08/29/07 "ICH" -- - In the administration of George W. Bush, the
Republican Party has achieved the greatest combination of idiocy and
evil in human history.
The Republicans have bogged America down in a gratuitous and illegal
war. The war has destroyed Iraq, killed between 650,000 and 1,000,000
Iraqi civilians, displaced 4,000,000 Iraqis, and littered the country
with depleted uranium. Bush's war remains unwon despite its five year
duration and $1 trillion in out-of-pocket and incurred future costs.
Bush's invasion of Iraq is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard, a
direct counterpart to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Both were based on
lies and deception, and the declared reasons for both were masks for
secret agendas.
Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, his planned attack on Iran
[http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf ], and his
support for Israel's attack on Lebanon and genocidal policies toward
the Palestinians have radicalized the Middle East and Muslims
worldwide. American and Israeli aggression have vindicated Osama bin
Laden's propaganda, produced massive recruits for Al Qaeda, and
unleashed destabilizing forces throughout the Middle EastBush's wars
are strengthening Islam. Abdullah Gul has just been elected president
of Turkey. Gul is described by the American media as "former
Islamist." Gul is supported by the ruling political party of prime
minister Erdogan, another "former Islamist."
Gul's election to the presidency by 76% of the Turkish parliament has
upset Turkey's secularized military, long in the pay of the US
government. On August 27 Turkey's military chief, General Yasar
Buyukanit, declared that "centers of evil systematically try to
corrode the secular nature of the Turkish Republic." The Turkish
military, many believe at the request and pay of the US, has
overthrown four Turkish governments since 1960, the last only 10 years
ago.
With President Bush's rant about "bringing democracy to the Middle
East," the Turkish military is less able to impose Western values on
an Islamic people. Similarly, the American puppet in Egypt cannot as
easily suppress the Islamic values and aspirations of Egyptians.
US puppet rulers in Jordan and Pakistan, and even the Saudis and oil
emirates, report the ground shaking under their feet. America's puppet
in Pakistan is in trouble, and his difficulties are compounded by US
military incursions into Pakistan. The Bush administration is
considering contingency plans to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons in
the event the American puppet is overthrown, delusional contingency
plans considering the over-stretched US military.
In the postwar years, the US managed with its money and influence to
secularize an elite class in Middle Eastern countries, an elite that
identifies with the West and not with their own cultures. This
artificial elite has produced a wide political gap between the masses
of the people and the rulers. Increasingly, Muslim masses perceive
their rulers as allied with foreign powers against them.
In Iraq the American puppet government of Nuri al-Maliki seems to be
on its last legs. The Sunnis have pulled their support, as has the
most important Shi'ite leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, who realizes that the
Maliki government is too complicit in US crimes to be a legitimate
government of Iraq. With both the Bush administration and Congress
blaming Maliki for America's failure in Iraq, Maliki's fate looks
increasingly to be that of Ngo Dinh Diem, America's Vietnam puppet who
was blamed for the failure of US intervention in Vietnam.
Just as Hitler long denied German defeats on the Russian front and
even in his last days was ordering non-existent German divisions to
relieve Berlin, the Bush regime finds a new straw to grasp in Iraq
each time the previous straw proves to be a delusion. The latest straw
is "the surge." While Americans surge, the British have been defeated
in southern Iraq and have withdrawn to two bases in eerie similarity
to the French at Dien Bien Phu. The British bases are subjected to
between 30 and 60 mortar and rocket attacks each day. British generals
want their troops out of Iraq. The longer UK prime minister Brown
keeps them in Iraq in order to appease the Bush administration, the
harder it will be to rescue the survivors.
With American retreat south to Kuwait now potentially cut off, how
will the US extract its troops and equipment when American defeat can
no longer be denied?
The Bush administration and its politicized military are already
blaming the failure of "the surge" on Iran. Iran is alleged to be
training and arming Iraqis who resist the US occupation. Bush has said
he will hold Iran responsible. There is abundant evidence that the
Bush administration is preparing yet another illegal attack on a
Muslim country without assessing the consequences.
The Bush administration seems destined to produce such disasters that
it will be driven to the use of nuclear weapons in order to avoid
defeat. The Bush administration possesses the combination of evil and
stupidity required to escalate a failed "cakewalk war" into a nuclear
one.
Many of the administration's most evil members--Wolfowitz, Feith,
Libby, Rumsfeld, Rove, and Gonzales--have been discarded as the
tragedy deepens, but Cheney remains ensconced as does the moron in the
White House. Before they fall, Bush and Cheney will bring more sorrow
to the world and more shame to Americans.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has Bush Boxed Himself In?
By Pat Buchanan
08/29/07 "Creators Syndicate" -- - As Americans anguish over how to
extricate this country from Iraq without a disaster greater than what
we now have, and without our friends suffering the fate of our friends
in Cambodia and Vietnam, they had best brace themselves. This
escalator is going up.
and his generals are laying out the case for a new war. And there has
been no resistance offered either by a vacationing Congress or the
major presidential candidates.
On CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, No. 2 commander
in Iraq, said, "It is clear to me that (the Iranians) have been
stepping up their support" for enemy fighters in Iraq.
"They do it from providing weapons, ammunition, specifically mortars
and explosively formed projectiles. ... They are conducting training
within Iran of Iraqi extremists to come back here and fight the United
States."
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said his troops were following 50 members of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who have been crossing the border and
training fighters in Iraq. The State Department is about to declare
the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Earlier in August, President Bush directly charged Tehran with aiding
Iraqi insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers:
"I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq ... to
send the message that there will be consequences for ... people
transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill
American troops."
The EFPs are roadside bombs that penetrate Bradley Fighting Vehicles
and Abrams tanks. They have taken the lives of scores of U.S.
soldiers.
Whether Bush has made the decision to attack the al Quds training
camps inside Iran, he has painted himself into a corner.
If he does not strike the camps, he will be mocked by the War Party as
a weak commander in chief, too timid to use U.S. power to protect
soldiers he sent into battle or to punish those killing them.
Thus, Bush must either announce that his diplomacy has worked, and
attacks out of Iran have diminished or been halted, or he will have to
explain why the Top Gun of the carrier Lincoln was too wimpish to do
his duty by the soldiers he sent to fight.
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice
President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air
strikes on Al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting
disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war, and for
having assured the American people it would be a "cakewalk."
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle
East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War
Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit
U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that
the United States is yesterday and they must appease Iran or go
nuclear themselves.
As for Bush and Cheney, if they go home without hitting Iran's nuclear
sites, and Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the Bush Doctrine will have
been defied by the Ayatollah as well as Kim Jong-il, and their legacy
will be a no-win war in Iraq.
The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran,
as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they
will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's
nuclear facilities.
First, the al Quds camps, then Natanz, Isfahan and Bushewr.
Initially, Americans might cheer the bombing of Iran, and Congress
would head for the tall grass. But as U.S. strikes would be an act of
war, rallying the Iranians behind the failing regime of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and igniting a long war the end of which we cannot see and
the troops for which we do not have, there are powerful arguments
against a new war.
Iran and the United States would both pay a hellish price, and Iran at
least seems to recognize it. Both the Iraqi and Afghan governments say
Iran is behaving as a good neighbor. There is evidence Tehran's
nuclear program is faltering, or being curbed. Iran is said to be
making concessions to U.N. inspectors.
Iran has released an American seized in response to our seizure of
five Iranian "diplomats" in Iraq. Iran's ambassador to the United
Nations, in a letter to the Washington Post, denies Iran is aiding the
Iraqi insurgency and calls on the U.S. government to "proffer
evidence" and "provide the list of Iranian agents who it alleges are
operating in Iraq."
If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran.
As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on
war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to
authorize a war?
Or has it given Bush and Cheney another blank check?
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate web page at www.creators.com .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
September 2, 2007
Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for IranSarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
confront Iran "before it is too late".
Related Links
Hardliner takes over Revolutionary Guards
One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
"significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
"They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
have practised deception."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
coalition must tackle".
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months ? "despite
pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.



http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

[Paul Elliot]

David Casey wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:13:26 -0700, AirRaid wrote:
>
>> Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
>> Sarah Baxter, Washington
>>
>> The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
>> targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
>> capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
>>
>> Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
>> Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
>> for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
>> about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.
>>
>> Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
>> conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
>> US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
>> out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
>> It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".
>>
>> President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
>> accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
>> nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
>> confront Iran "before it is too late".
>> Related Links
>>
>> One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
>> administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
>> he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
>> security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
>> sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
>>
>> The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
>> "significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
>> said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
>> most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
>> stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
>> is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
>>
>> Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
>> moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
>> placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
>> overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
>>
>> Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
>> weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
>> be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
>>
>> Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
>> of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
>> plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
>> nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
>> "They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
>> have practised deception."
>>
>> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
>> administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
>> But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
>> Americans in Iraq.
>>
>> The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
>> Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
>> that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
>> under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
>> coalition must tackle".
>>
>> Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
>> Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
>> pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".
>>
>> It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
>> Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
>> involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
>> would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
>
> The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
> planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
> stuff. Nothing new here.
>
> Dave

Yep! Glad they're on the job!
:-)

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:53:42 -0700, Paul Elliot
> wrote:


>> The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
>> planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
>> stuff. Nothing new here.
>>
>> Dave
>
>Yep! Glad they're on the job!

They better be.

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?


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

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:53:42 -0700, Paul Elliot
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on
>>> the
>>> planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do.
>>> Plan
>>> stuff. Nothing new here.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>>Yep! Glad they're on the job!
>
> They better be.
>
> 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?
>
Like they'd be listened to, anyways.

Glenn D.

[Paul J. Adam]

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?

--
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)co<dot>uk

[Tankfixer]

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.....


--

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

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

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.

[Paul J. Adam]

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)co<dot>uk

[Paul J. Adam]

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)co<dot>uk

[La N]

"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]

"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

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

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.

[Tankfixer]

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."

[Paul J. Adam]

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)co<dot>uk

[Bill Kambic]

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.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

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.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

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.

[Paul J. Adam]

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)co<dot>uk

[Paul J. Adam]

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)co<dot>uk

[Bill Kambic]

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."

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Bill Kambic
> writes
>On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 23:40:01 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>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.

No, you're answering my question.

>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.

So why not in this case?

>>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.

I *am* wrong? I thought the US was able to delegate the right to open
fire downwards. Am I incorrect?

>>(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.

So we accept that this is another case where it's not compulsory to call
Washington and get Presidential approval for the use of armed force,
correct? Again, the US military demonstrates that it understands
delegation... apart, apparently, from when it chooses not to.

>>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.

So who is "the officer acting at his discretion"? This tale has the
President and only the President holding everything tight. Did _nobody_
think this was a bad plan? Or was it more important to show up the CinC
than to achieve the mission?

>>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.

Yet what we have here is a military chain sitting with their thumbs
jammed up their posterior sphincters, wailing that no matter how
high-value the target they can't do a _thing_ until the basketball game
finishes and the President deigns to speak with them again. (While
simultaneously complaining that the President doesn't love and respect
them) There is no alternative, there is no pre-delegation, there is no
"if approver #1 unavailable then speak to #2, if #2 cannot be reached
speak to #3"...

It sounds much more like post-failure arse-covering than a realistic
after-action report. "Gee whiz, we absolutely could have taken out
bin-Laden for sure if only that nasty President had let us..."

>>If this mission is so important, why is nobody trying to make it happen?
>
>I dunno. I'm not in ithat loop.

Guess. Would *you* make it happen if you were in that loop?

>>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.

Political exaggeration on both sides (and I tired quickly of wading
through Google to find the source - if I'm going to defend Slick Willy I
need to save these points) is likely but, I have to say, you could not
find many serving military folks with anything good to say about WJC
from 1995 (when I jumped into Usenet) to when he left office or
thereafter. Doubtless muchly deserved... but it didn't breed confidence
that he was getting good advice.

If the US military is meant to impartially serve its commander-in-chief
then it _really_ failed under Clinton. He may well have deserved it...
but you don't get to pick and choose "this CinC is a nasty piece of work
undeserving of our respect" without triggering a civil war.

>
>>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.

Looking in from another country, I see a polarisation and an overt
hatred which leaves me wondering whether that oath was fulfilled. Again,
did "the military" really try to take out bin-Laden? Or was it more
convenient to defer a difficult task that might not be well supported?

>>Then that suggests Iran-Contra was a bad move, correct?
>
>No, Sir, it says it was an unlawful move.

So what does it gain for the US?

It's a really stupid plan, from the point of view of the RN ships on the
Armilla Patrol trying to get tankers in and out of the Arabian Gulf.
That's my direct involvement (I work with gentlemen who were in the area
at the time and have very strong opinions).

We want Iraq to hold out against Iran's religious fundamentalism...
except that the US is selling serious military hardware to Iran so they
can fight better against Iraq. Just WTF is going on and why are we
sending ships to the Arabian Gulf when there are other jobs for them to
do?

>> 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. ;-) ).

Clausewitz, at the very least (it's a little more complex in translation
than that) but probably predates him.

>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."

Which is kind of my point. Do you want to win? Or do you hate your boss?

If you want to win, then when El Presidente can't be distracted from his
television you fire and plead for forgiveness.

If you want to score political points, you blame El Presidente for
"everything was perfect, perfect I tell you!" and not being allowed to
fire.

The lowliest British Army officer-cadet of the late 1980s was hit with a
scenario where you couldn't ask "the boss" what to do but had to choose
between the explicit orders you had been given, and "commander's intent"
of what he _wanted_ to do. If you discover the facts on the ground have
changed, do you blindly obey outdated orders or do you ask "what would
my Guvnor want me to do if he was here now?"


But you answer my question - it seems nobody was willing to say "the
Boss wants this guy dead, the Boss told us to find him and kill him, the
Boss won't tell us to shoot until the basketball game is over and
that'll be too late... shoot now and we can tell the Boss how well he
did "

--
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)co<dot>uk

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

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.

[Bill Kambic]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:39:55 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

You can "dance" around this question forever and not come up with a
"correct" answer.

If you feel comfortable taking the shot and are willing to take the
responsiblity and consequences (good or bad) that come from it then
good on you. Maybe you'll get a medal and maybe your action will
start a much larger conflagration. Or screw up some other operation.
There are WAY too many possiblities to even consider.

If it's "simplistic" to just follow orders it's equally simplistic to
search for "intent" when an order is clear. And to disregard them is
cometimes called "mutiny."

[Tankfixer]

In article >,
mumbled
>
> 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?

It was a Senator expresssing his disdain for Mr Clinton, not the
military.







--

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

[Ian MacLure]

Tankfixer > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> mumbled
>>
>> 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?
>
> It was a Senator expresssing his disdain for Mr Clinton, not the
> military.

If you''ll recall an Air Force Lt Gen was fired for saying six (IIRC)
things about Klintoon all of which were true. Something about lying,
philandering, etc. That the statement was factual was no defence.
The military are not allowed to criticize civilian authority in
public unless of course they are DHimmicreeps criticizing a Republican
administration. Then anything goes.

IBM

[J a c k]

Bill Kambic wrote:


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


??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????



Jack