This subject has turned into the perfect storm for me, my thoughts were building like a storm surge in the Gulf of Florida during hurricane season. I'm reading a book called, "The Lone Survivor" which is the eye witness account of a navy seal operation-turned-tragedy in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Great book. Unless you are Liberal...you might not like is as much as I did.
Regardless, the Seal Team Leader talks about the dilemma of the Rules of Engagement imposed upon our military by the "suits" back in Washington. These rules impose two major problems:
1. Excessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a political or diplomatic objective, and the military commanders, who are trying to make the most effective use of their forces.
2. Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II error or "escalatory" error. A common contemporary Type II error would be the use of excessive force, such as air-strikes, in an area with high numbers of noncombatants where such force would result in unintended collateral damage.
With this on my mind, the headline news of the last two days has come to light as Gen. Stanley McChrystal has stepped down as Afghanistand War Commander.
Simple point, made by me. Let the men and women chosen to direct operations with "boots-on-ground" make decisions about how, when and where to act. Politicians sitting easy in Washington, with seperate agendas, let those you have chosen for the job, DO the job.
