Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
I do suggest the more restrictive ROE probably poorly interpreted encourage even more ill informed further over zealous and totally extreme risk aversion (and add that today's technology allows even more second guessing from further in the rear -- not a good thing).
All excellent points Ken, and yes, the old "stupid things done badly" seems to be a constant challenge!

My point is that the article concerned does not merit being published as an OP-ED in the NY Times, purely because it lacks credible evidence and data. I want informed opinion, not mere opinion.

There is almost certainly a debate to be had about the effective implementation of ROE concerning CAS and Stand-off fires, but the article concerned does not form part of that argument, other than to show the current debate is being particularly intelligently conducted.

I just do not see any problem with using Air Power, IF it can be intelligently applied. If the evidence is that it cannot be intelligently applied, then stop using it - AND - point out the reason there is no CAS is because of the poor standards of training and leadership (risk averse?) does not makes its use supportable as a policy.