My buddy Tom hit me with a few things about the situation in Libya and its aftermath and it got me to thinking.
A list of my bullet points....
1. AFRICOM was never intended to be a "real" combatant command. Instead it was intended to be the vessel through which the US military conducted humanitarian and military to military training.
2. General Ham was/is a politician. He lacks the necessary skills and the backing to actually be a player in the power game that is Africa. The Chinese are playing chess and we have a political hack in country. Why do I say that? Can you imagine General Mattis not sending forces ahead anyway to at least have them orbiting nearby to dash in once the word was given? I can't and I can't be sure but the guy I used to know would have disregarded those orders and had the knuckle draggers from Delta heel stomping the entire city.
3. Obama did know about the situation but instead of taking immediate action he vacillated. In essence by not making a decision in a timely matter, HE MADE THE CHOICE NOT TO HELP. Its somewhat circular but in doing nothing, he in fact did something (I'm killing myself to say it a better way but can't hit on it...someone help me out here)...his deliberative style essentially doomed these men. Remember the assault on Bin Laden? It had at least 2 dry runs before he finally pulled the trigger. There was no time to debate on this one. He had to make a command decision without all the facts and chose to do nothing.
4. The Joint Chiefs are no longer an independent group. Rumsfeld actually started us down this road when he not only disagreed with the military's assessment that more troops were needed for the invasion of Iraq but then had them go before the camera's and lie and say that the plan was their own and that they fully supported it. Until the military reforms itself, the JCS should be looked at as an arm of the administration that is in power and not an independent entity. To think that Panetta is able to hide behind the JCS instead of facing the media by himself is telling...and disturbing too.
Those are my thought, but we need to know more. Time will tell if I'm right or not.
UPDATE: It just occurred to me that we're seeing almost unprecedented interference with operations. I remember reading stories about Commanders in Vietnam orbiting in helicopters over a battle trying to lead the men on the ground doing the actual fighting. Are we seeing an updated example of it but with the leaders in Washington D.C. attempting to influence events that they have no real understanding of? If thats the case then we have bigger problems than I thought.
UPDATE 1: I was reading some of my Marine Corps leadership manuals and a term that was included in one of them applies perfectly to what happened to our Commander-in-Chief. He suffered a paralysis due to analysis. He studied the problem, sought opinions on the problem and in the end took so long that in essence he did nothing. That's the real coverup in all this. The guy couldn't make a decision and people lost their lives because of his indecision.
A list of my bullet points....
1. AFRICOM was never intended to be a "real" combatant command. Instead it was intended to be the vessel through which the US military conducted humanitarian and military to military training.
2. General Ham was/is a politician. He lacks the necessary skills and the backing to actually be a player in the power game that is Africa. The Chinese are playing chess and we have a political hack in country. Why do I say that? Can you imagine General Mattis not sending forces ahead anyway to at least have them orbiting nearby to dash in once the word was given? I can't and I can't be sure but the guy I used to know would have disregarded those orders and had the knuckle draggers from Delta heel stomping the entire city.
3. Obama did know about the situation but instead of taking immediate action he vacillated. In essence by not making a decision in a timely matter, HE MADE THE CHOICE NOT TO HELP. Its somewhat circular but in doing nothing, he in fact did something (I'm killing myself to say it a better way but can't hit on it...someone help me out here)...his deliberative style essentially doomed these men. Remember the assault on Bin Laden? It had at least 2 dry runs before he finally pulled the trigger. There was no time to debate on this one. He had to make a command decision without all the facts and chose to do nothing.
4. The Joint Chiefs are no longer an independent group. Rumsfeld actually started us down this road when he not only disagreed with the military's assessment that more troops were needed for the invasion of Iraq but then had them go before the camera's and lie and say that the plan was their own and that they fully supported it. Until the military reforms itself, the JCS should be looked at as an arm of the administration that is in power and not an independent entity. To think that Panetta is able to hide behind the JCS instead of facing the media by himself is telling...and disturbing too.
Those are my thought, but we need to know more. Time will tell if I'm right or not.
UPDATE: It just occurred to me that we're seeing almost unprecedented interference with operations. I remember reading stories about Commanders in Vietnam orbiting in helicopters over a battle trying to lead the men on the ground doing the actual fighting. Are we seeing an updated example of it but with the leaders in Washington D.C. attempting to influence events that they have no real understanding of? If thats the case then we have bigger problems than I thought.
UPDATE 1: I was reading some of my Marine Corps leadership manuals and a term that was included in one of them applies perfectly to what happened to our Commander-in-Chief. He suffered a paralysis due to analysis. He studied the problem, sought opinions on the problem and in the end took so long that in essence he did nothing. That's the real coverup in all this. The guy couldn't make a decision and people lost their lives because of his indecision.
You could call that "action by omission".
ReplyDeleteIn fact,
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_of_omission
[I could recite you the old Spanish version: it does have a certain rhythm]
WRT "Update".
ReplyDeleteLikely.
Fast access to top information tends to lead to illusions of ability (and pressure for personal action). You can see it everywhere.
Take care.
i agree with you, i couldn't put it better myself.
Deletei think there was a failure in giving him better protection, or better yet, with the violence in the area, he shouldn't have been there.
ReplyDeleteBut
putting troops on the ground after would be a mistake, look at the local peoples reaction, in the aftermath, giving immediate first aid, getting him quickly to hospital. all that crap about abuse/protests turning violent, where proven wrong.
then a few days later, marching on & evicting the militia's who where widely, believed responsible, old west type justice, running for the hills, if they weren't already killed in the processes.
it may not be satisfactory by american standards, but it says to me "we dont want you al qaeda bastards here", in the long term for there stability, a hands off approach in this instance, will work better.
Sol,
ReplyDelete"paralysis through analysis" looks like the way the self defence community looks at the OODA loop. A guy I know who used to be on the civilian pointy end of things (dealing with multiple murderers and such fine examples of humanity) says he's checked his experience with other people, both civilian and military, and that you need two successful actions that affect your environment to break the freeze. Not one, not three.
If you keep thinking, you don't act. If you don't act, you certainly don't affect the environment. So, you can't unfreeze. In a civilian setting, look for Dpty. Dinkheller's murder.
Take care.
PS: That would be Rory Miller, at http://chirontraining.com/Site/Home.html and others. I'll point out that he calls what he used to be an "operator", precisely to avoid stealing the "warrior" term from "those who do war". I know your mileage varies.