(06-21-2019, 09:57 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

(06-21-2019, 08:50 AM)mikesez Wrote: According to the New York Times, Trump held an informal meeting with the press in the Oval Office where he said that he believed the Iranians shot a US drone down by mistake, maybe one overzealous soldier operating the launcher there.

But about an hour later, after dismissing reporters, Trump had apparently ordered airstrikes against Iran involving both manned aircraft and cruise missiles.  They would have hit Iran a few hours before dawn their time.

Then a few minutes after that, Trump called the whole thing off.

This all makes me nauseous. We won't know the real story for a few years, if ever.  Was Trump deliberately trying to create some theater or is he truly being indecisive?

You need to lay off the Clancy novels and whatever other fictional war novels you prefer. The real world doesn't operate like that.

This process happens quite often. In basic form without all the military lingo, the military operates on their own spectrum and based on a goal that is disseminated. Combatant Commanders have complete freedom of operation from the administration side. If the risk does not support the targeting, it will get called off and they will advise up. The problem with having all these publicized meetings or dog and pony shows are that the information spreads like wildfire and targets of opportunity get moved and hidden. Not to say that the mobile SAM launcher wasn't moved within 15 minutes anyway.

You also must weigh the risk of shutting down the Strait, which is actually what Iran wants. They also want the international community to believe we are the instigator. We aren't going to give them that unless there is no other way out. I can assure you that there is a heavy strike plan in place, and further assets are most likely being redirected (mine clearing and ship reclamation). We have enough capability in the area do damage many times over but strikes have wide-ranging consequences that have to be planned for. 

Stop with the Trump this or Trump that. You'd whine if there was a strike and you're whining now that there isn't.

Since my post, the President has explained himself on Twitter.
Contrary to your explanation, he is taking responsibility for the decision making process.  The commanders presented facts and options, and the President made decisions.  
I asked if this was deliberate theater or indecision.  
Trump now says that he ordered his commanders to retaliate, and they initiated an attack plan, but then it occured to Trump to ask how many Iranians might die, and the number was too high.  So Trump is denying that this was theater and sort-of letting us blame him for ordering an attack before he asked all the relevant questions about the attack.  Was this really how it happened? Maybe not, but his explanation is a lot more plausible than yours because he was there.

I don't read Clancy.
The only fiction I read is Sci Fi with interstellar travel.

I get that you have spent lots of time in or around the military, and thank you for that, but the little inside details you offer never seem to add anything to the general, simplified picture you get just watching the news.

I also get that I have irritated you somehow, that you have a need to twist my words until they come out into something that you can disagree with.

I'm sorry that you think I would complain about Trump whether he attacks Iran or not.  If he really is trying to keep the straits safe without killing Iranians, I think that's great. But being 10 minutes away from killing 150 Iranians is exactly where the momentum of his rhetoric and diplomacy got him, and it will take him to that precipice again, as soon as tomorrow, if he doesn't reverse course.

---