Basic Concepts

If one has ever been in a management or leadership or executive role, it is inevitable that you will have encountered some basic principles of organization. Of course, that rules out the Bamster. Unless, of course, you count community organizing or voting "present" for a couple of years.

Among the rules, one of the basics is "unity of command." You can only work for one boss at a time. You might even recognize that as biblical in origin. "You cannot serve two masters; God and Mammon." If you've got more than one source of direction you will inevitably come to a fork in the road and Yogi's dictum will not be adequate. If your two bosses give you different directions which will you choose? If one of your two bosses is deciding by a committee of 28 fractious directors then it will really get complicated.

That's is the sandwich which SecState Clinton weasel-worded in her announcement last night. It is the result of the clear guidance of the Messiah that after kicking the hornet's nest he wanted no part of the longer haul responsibility of dealing with the resultant. He didn't know who would lead, but it wouldn't be him.

Before long it became apparent that it couldn't be the Arab League regardless of the emotional efficacy of that solution. They don't have adequate skin in the game or is there a willingness from those who do to subjugate their forces to such inconsistent and duplicitous objectives.

The best outcome might have been a clear turn-over to France and/or Britain who had led the charge and certainly met the qualifications for the task. But that got complicated when Germany balked and Italy which was hosting the party demanded some rent. That threw the ball into NATO's court.

Once upon a time NATO was a reasonably sized alliance with common interests, a visible and clear opponent, and serious vesting in the mission. Today it is nearly three times the membership and the role is flexible, ill-defined, and apparently well beyond the immediate North Atlantic theater of operations. Today forging a workable command structure from these diverse and conflicting interests if impossible.

So, the result which was announced yesterday was the clear violation of unity of command. Apparently the agreement was finally that NATO would assume command/control of the airspace denial mission, the "No-Fly Zone." But, they would NOT take control of the remainder of the mission supported by UN Resolution 1973 which involves cutting off armor and artillery attack on innocent civilians in Libya by Qaddafi forces. That is still under the US AFRICOM control.

That raises the issues of who is in charge of what missions. Who allocates available forces? Who determines which jets do what jobs? Can a mission in progress by diverted? Can it shift from Command A to Command B? Who handles ROE and the conflicts which arise? Who gives final firing dispensation? Who sets priorities? Who deconflicts?

At the most simple level, what would have happened with the French Rafale shooting of the Galeb? Was it a No-Fly mission or was it a ground attack? The Galeb had flown, but was attacked after landing. Who would be in charge now?

The mark of a pro in sports is that he wants the ball. A pitcher wants the ball. A receiver wants the ball. A running back wants the ball. A point guard wants the ball. Obama doesn't want the ball.