Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, how does Obama's war get paid for? Can we have an special tax on the wealthiest? Can [View all]grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)59. Von Clauswitz called it "The Fog of War" ie, no one knows what will happen...
The nature of the ambiguity described as the fog of war varies according to the level at which participants are engaged.
Grand strategic
Ambiguity is related to the political intent, capabilities, and logistical strengths of an adversary. Sources of information include diplomatic intelligence, secret (or special) intelligence, strategic modeling, and data derived from open-source intelligence. Affected participants seek to understand intent of and political motivations. Outcomes at this level may encompass military action but are more concerned with sociopolitical and economic outcomes from which it might cascade if left unattended.
Military strategic
Militarily, the ambiguity experienced at this level relates to the structure, strength, capability, and disposition of own and adversary offensive and defensive assets. Own-force ambiguity can be caused by failure to report material deficiencies or an unwillingness to escalate concerns, leading to an optimistic view of own capabilities. Adversary ambiguity may be a result of inaccurate intelligence, sources being subverted or deceived, or adversary intelligence presenting a superior picture allowing one's decision cycle to be compromised. In addition, if unanticipated situations occur they can hamper the execution of long term planning.
Operational
Within the operational theatre the commander undertakes tasks as directed by the Military Strategic level, ambiguity continues to relate to adversary capability and intent but is coupled with own directive ambiguity, the commander not having the full sight of the strategic imperative. As operational tempo increases at this level the ambiguity experienced by the commander is susceptible to delays in communication of the tactical situation and the ebb and flow of own force, and adversary force interaction. The commander seeks to penetrate the fog of war through significant use of reconnaissance assets and a comprehensive Joint Operational Picture.
Tactical
Ambiguity stems from several factors at the tactical level, both by deliberate means by the enemy (including active deception and/or electronic attack on communications and sensors) as well as factors inherent to battle resulting in lack of comprehension by commanders as to the tactical environment, the logistic status of their own units, how they are interacting with each other, or their intentions. This lack of comprehension can stem from many factors, individually or in combination, such as poor reconnaissance; inaccurate intelligence; or faulty communication. The tempo of decision making at the tactical level is much greater than at other levels, increasing the risk of escalating ambiguity as assumptions build and resources are allocated based on those assumptions.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
77 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So, how does Obama's war get paid for? Can we have an special tax on the wealthiest? Can [View all]
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
OP
Money is never a problem unless its being spent on those who cant fund reelection campaigns
DJ13
Sep 2013
#3
Raytheon Will Replace the Missiles Fired For Big Bucks - A "New" Expense
HumansAndResources
Sep 2013
#64
I do not see why. A question was asked about 'the cost' and I gave my opinion.
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#10
I don't know, maybe they percieve your statement as absurd, here's an estimate:
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#14
Syria will be short-term and no boots on the ground and Obama is not going to do..
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#16
Syria might be like Granada, or Libya, or Iraq, or Vietnam.... which is why we should not start,
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#25
Von Clauswitz called it "The Fog of War" ie, no one knows what will happen...
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#59
I did not say 'hurry up and use them'. On the news during the Libya intervention...
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#15
The missiles that are fired will have to be replaced. The war profiteers are already salivating I'm
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#21
Three missiles at 50 targets equals 150. That time $1 million apiece equals one hell of a lot of
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#28
Why are you comparing Bush's Iraq to Syria - instead of comparing Syria to how Obama handled Libya?
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#45
I think some of us learned a lot about Pres Obama by what he did regarding LIBYA.
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#48
My sig line is NOT ridiculous. Going to help prevent more people from being gassed is NOT a dumb war
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#49
Going in and bombing military stockpiles and aircraft is NOT bombing 1400 people.
Tx4obama
Sep 2013
#52
Yeah, and those soldiers were gonna die anyway, after all, everybody does!
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#62
No. It will be paid for out of your earned pension, earned benefits, etc. The rich
silvershadow
Sep 2013
#30
Well he did stae his intention toward Syria, and he said he wants war.
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2013
#37
So I read a few posts above me explaining that this military adventure was practically paid for.
mick063
Sep 2013
#54
So, why doesn't he represent the will of the majority? Thinks he knows better?
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#75