Blunderer in chief

I believe many of us exmilitary guys will find this interesting.

Blunderer in Chief
Townhall.com ^
| November 24, 2009 | Michael McBride

Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:18:20 AM by
Kaslin

I've read the dictionary definition of blunderer (2: to make a mistake
through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness), and I it believe it is
somewhat incomplete.

There is another aspect to blundering that is missing from this definition,
and it centers about ego and blind arrogance.

While I fully agree with the Webster definition, it seems that many blunders
are less chance events, and more driven by egocentric individuals, blinded
by their own will and arrogance.

Napoleon's and Hitler's invasions of Russia. Custer's final battle with the
Sioux. The United States' escalation in Vietnam.

All blunders and all purposefully driven by the egos of those involved.

Napoleon should have recognized that the sheer size of Russia made it
impossible to hold or subjugate, even if it could be have been conquered.

By many accounts Custer lacked an appreciation of the Sioux's battlefield
skills, and he is known for having over-inflated his own tactical abilities.
He
gave a demonstration of this lack of respect for the enemy by dividing his
forces and pursuing the offense in spite of many tactical clues that could
have
resulted in far less devastation to the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn.

Hitler should have learned from Napoleon, and he should have also considered
the items added by me above. He should have also been able to predict that
opening a second front, one that dwarfed the first front in its vastness,
would be problematic for many reasons, but it is well known that sound
strategy
and logic was rejected in favor of his egotism.

Collectively, the United States overestimated its post-World War Two
abilities and grossly underestimated the powerful nationalistic force that
drove the
North Vietnamese. Early we were only lightly engaged as advisors, but we
quickly and arrogantly turned it into a war infused with business like
calculations
and predictive results that centered only on our view of the world, our
calculations, and our massive military capability. We completely, and
arrogantly,
blundered into a war that would bog us down for more than a decade by
ignoring other inputs, such as the will and motivation of our adversary and
their
determination to defeat us. We were befuddled and mystified when they did.

Webster should find away to work the words, arrogance, blinded and ego into
their definition.

President Obama is lining up two make two of the largest blunders he could
make as a President, and both will cost American lives.

Not his health care rationing and economic redistribution plan. Not his
farcical "stimulus" program, which is nothing more than a higher form of
vote buying.
And not the Administration's fumbling of the H1N1 vaccine program.

I am talking about Obama's new role as Military-Tactician-in-Chief and his
adjunct role as Prosecutor-in-Chief.

Each of the Services has an operational planning school for senior captains.
In the Marine Corps this school is known as Amphibious Warfare School.
Graduates
leave the school with an in depth knowledge of operational planning and
staff planning for amphibious operations.

One of the techniques used to focus planning efforts is the development of
courses of action or "COAs." In COA development, captains are limited to
developing
only three possible plans. What becomes readily apparent after a couple of
these planning exercises, is that there are rarely three equally appealing
COAs
to choose from.

One COA typically stands out as being the best strategic choice based on
lessons learned from similar operations and a reasonable comparison to the
well
understood Principles of War.

The next COA is often appealing from an "outside-the-box" perspective,
because it is not typically the "textbook" solution. But COA number two
almost always
has more inherent risk.

COA three is usually a non-starter. It generally falls far from conventional
wisdom and experience, and it usually carries an inordinate amount of risk
compared to the other choices.

There is almost never an appealing fourth choice.

Yet the President has rejected our best military planners' options asking
them to go back to the table to develop CAO number five.

This is unheard of; not because military planners are stubborn as mules and
goats (Go Navy; beat Army), but because an elemental application of the
Principles
of War, the terrain, the enemy capabilities, lines of communication,
weaponry, communications and connectivity, and myriad of applicable factors
will necessarily
cull the number of realistic choices to a number below three. Certainly not
a number greater than or equal to, five.

The President's blind desire to please the left wing of his party will place
the strategic responsibility for Afghanistan solely at his feet as he has
rejected
the best advice his planners can give in favor of a choice that is no better
than fifth from a strategic point of view.

Mr. Obama is jeopardizing our troops' lives by fighting with an unwinnable
playbook and blundering into the abyss of Afghanistan with a strategy
ultimately
devised by the radicals of his party and the marionette grinner, Joe Biden.
Maybe Al Gore could chime in.

He blunders further by insisting that five murderous terrorists be given
habeas corpus rights and a public trial in New York City, and then
guaranteeing
the results of such a trial.

In his efforts to complete the demonization of the Gitmo detention facility
and the Bush Administration by trying these enemies in open court, he has
put
New Yorkers at great risk. He is committing the classic McNamara
underestimation. Terrorists will not appreciate the openness and
transparency of our judicial
system, but they will greatly appreciate that we have now given them a new
target at which to concentrate their aim.

The city of New York will be racked by terrorist events large and small, and
it will be at the invitation of the Obama Administration. Justice could have
easily been served off-shore in a manner that did not invite undue attention
to our soil, but these trials, and New York itself, will become the new
bulls-eye
for terror activity. And there will be many taking aim.

Imagine the price Al Qaeda will pay the families of successful bombers if
they disrupt the trials, or cause the trials to be eventually moved. Imagine
the
loss of respect the United States will suffer and the boom in recruiting all
rogue terror groups will enjoy. Bringing these trials to New York is a
completely
unnecessary move that will, quite literally, blow up in the Obama
Administration's face.

In both cases, the Obama Administration is wandering far from common sense,
and they are trying to sell their silliness and irresponsibility with hollow
guarantees, clever buzzwords, and a promise of vacuous and immeasurable
results (hybrid strategy; transparent jurisprudence e.g.).

Make no mistake, while the Obama team is confusing itself with nonsensical
strategies and inane prosecutorial practices, Al Qaeda and the Taliban will
be
preparing to light up the scoreboard with American lives both in Afghanistan
and in NYC.

When the numbers of casualties go up in Afghanistan and a number of bombs go
off in New York, and the Obama Administration will dither at an even higher
frequency and they will wonder how it was they became the Best and the
Brightest, part two.

Ego and arrogance.

All hail, the Blunderer-in-Chief.