You assume UBL actually cares what the people think. I would argue that the actions of AQI are a good example of AQ being perfectly willing to break some eggs making their caliphate omlette.
You assume that the strategist and the politician are different. Again, this is not the case in our system. Politicians are the strategists. Our system intentionally separates the military from the other levers of national power, unifying them only within civilians that control the executive branch. This means that strategy is ultimately decided by politicians and their close advisors. This does mean, however, that our strategists have to adhere to political restrictions - because they are usually running for re-election.I insist that there is no confusion. Warden already stressed the fact that "All military operations, including air operations, should be consonant with the prevailing political and physical environment." I hope we can agree that this statement is correct and valid for any strategist. All power systems have political restrictions to worry about and it is the strategist's job to come up with a strategy within the bounderies of these restrictions. It is NOT the politician's job to change the political and physical environment to suit the strategy.
Marc
Not all systems are constrained - again, restraint assumes a rational actor, and as pvebber has pointed out, people are not always rational.
V/R,
Cliff
Bookmarks