You don't.
He shouldn't need to know where an almost certain ambush/assasination attempt on his own life is going to take place because he should be trained well enough to protect himsefl and his troops against ANY attack, regardless of where it is, when it is and on whoever the assailants choose, without ANY intelligence on it?
He should be able impose force protection measures to improve his command's survivability WITHOUT precise information. You never have precise information of what the enemy's intent is; that's why it's called the "fog of war." He apparently is unable to operate in the absence of perfect information; therefore, he is not able to operate in any environment with a real, live enemy.
So, what happened to the Chinook pilot? What about all of the troops killed by IED's since we strode into Iraq?
I see your problem. You cannot deal with uncertainty and risk. Please quit following war news; you obviously lack the stomach for it.
You think if any of those killed had found out about their attacks beforehand by virtue of a commander using "unusual" tactics to get a prisoner to talk, they would have called for the guy's head and proceeded on with their actions?
Suppose the commander used "unusual tactics" and was handed a poison pill of false info. You think his troops would appreciate getting sent right into an ambush because the CO got his precious information?
Acting without precise data in a semi-peaceful environment is one thing, but it is entirely another when you may not have enough data to know when and where an attack is coming in the heart of an area where you are despised and attacked on a daily basis.
Then you're saying that we can never deploy military forces in anything but the most permissive environments, such as Germany; the fog of war is, after all, endemic.
The more information you have on an attack, the better chance to prevent it. You can better prepare for it and better protect your troops from it with more information.
And the bad guys now know that this guy's a pushover for information gathered in a particular fashion.
Using your logic, we shouldn't have needed troops or the French resistance to go ahead of the invasion force at Normandy to scout the area or set up beacons to guide pilots for the drops.
You're making a leap beyond logic here.
I'm pointing out that the argument offered in support of this officer's actions is that without perfect information, his troops were going to die.
Using your logic, we should abandon GPS and satellite intelligence for advanced forces and just give them a boy scout compass and battle plan drawn up by suits in D.C. and turn them loose.
If you can't fight without perfect information, then anything the enemy does to deny information to you gives them the initiative, and you will eventually lose.
How do we know he was simply "protecting" the troops and not conducting raids on a daily basis and needed to know if he was going to walk into a trap?
If you're conducting raids, you assume that the enemy is going to see you coming and that an ambush is possible anywhere along the raiders' ingress or egress routes. If he could not conduct a raid without perfect knowledge of the enemy's intentions, then he is unfit for command. Period.
And I will gladly take that bet, because there is no indication that anyone under his command said anything to the brass about this and it only became an issue after another inquiry into the incident by Army brass started.
If there was an investigation underway, there was a lack of confidence in this guy's command and leadership abilities. The source of that lack of confidence is not relevant; the fact that there IS a lack of confidence
He should be able impose force protection measures to improve his command's survivability WITHOUT precise information. You never have precise information of what the enemy's intent is; that's why it's called the "fog of war." He apparently is unable to operate in the absence of perfect information; therefore, he is not able to operate in any environment with a real, live enemy.
I see your problem. You cannot deal with uncertainty and risk. Please quit following war news; you obviously lack the stomach for it.
First off, who said anything about "precise" information? What I know of this is that he had intel that said an attack was coming, as well as an assassination attempt on his life. They captured a local police officer, who had been behind several attacks, and interrogated him to extract more information in order to have better information about the upcoming attack. You seem to think that LTC West, because he tried to extract information that might help save lives, was derelict in his duty because he seems, to you (but no one else I have read on here), to have a need for “precise” details of the impending attack. Nothing in any story or any thread here indicates that this was the case, nor does anyone here indicate the need for “precise” information before engaging the enemy. Obviously, LTC West felt the need for more information regarding his particular situation than he had. What I have read indicates to me that word of the impending attack came in not long before it was to be carried out. If that is the case, then LTC West probably saw the need to find out as much information as possible in a short amount of time. Since those who have served with him feel he is an exemplary officer, a good and righteous man and was right in his actions, I lean towards trusting him in his decision here.
And, for your information, I am well aware of the risks involved in war and have more than enough “stomach” for it. It is YOU who seems to lose the stomach here. You seem to be incapable of understanding that people might have a different opinion than yours. You overstate the positions I take on this man's situation for the purpose of belittling them, thus elevating your opinions. (typical liberal mantra, BTW) Case in point: you assume I think he had to have the most precise information down to the minute in order to carry out his duties. That is beyond absurd. Even under the best conditions, wartime intelligence offers indication of possible scenarios, which is why officers try to get as much information as possible before they get into a situation. And I am well aware of the fact that you can NEVER get intelligence on what an enemy WILL do, only what they MIGHT do, and even that is sketchy at best in war. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of war or the military knows that. And before you insult my intelligence once again, I DO know quite a bit about both. Enough to know that, because of what I stated above, ALL good military leaders try to get as much information about their enemy as possible before they get into combat situations. IMHO, LTC West did that and saved lives. Perhaps his methods for extracting the information were not the best, but certainly not the worst I have heard of either, not by a long shot.
Then you're saying that we can never deploy military forces in anything but the most permissive environments, such as Germany; the fog of war is, after all, endemic.
No, and I never said anything close to that. You are twisting what I, and others have said, to try to prove your point. You remind me a lot of a liberal I debate with regularly on another board. Your sentance structure and propensity for twisting statements to fit your needs are identical. Show me one instance where someone said that PRECISE information in a wartime scenario was necessary to carry out successful military operations. I never said it because it is absurd. What I DID say was that the more information you have, the better chance you have of preventing losses and overcoming your enemy.
And the bad guys now know that this guy's a pushover for information gathered in a particular fashion.
How, exactly, are the bad guys going to know a particular officer is a pushover by virtue of him scaring the crap out of ONE prisoner, who likely will never be released? Sure, word COULD get out, but how? Assuming it did, then maybe, just MAYBE, instead of viewing LTC West as a pushover (why would ANYONE assume a military commander in LTC West’s position was a pushover?) they will know him to be a hard-nosed, balls-to-the-wall commander who has no problem taking them out to protect his men. Maybe they will assume, unlike Bill Clinton, that he might actually carry out the things he says he will do. Maybe they will see him as someone they shouldn’t mess with. Maybe, since they had an assassination plot out for him, they already knew what kind of man he was. Now, unless you assume the enemy saw fit to assassinate a complete moron, LTC West must have been doing something right.
Since there were trained interrogators who had been working the prisoner, why would we not assume these people would decide whether or not the information the prisoner gave was valid? Are we to assume (since there are no hard facts to back this up) that LTC West was going to just take whatever the prisoner said at face value and run with it? Don't you have a higher opinion of our military than to assume ANYONE that reckless would be elevated to a position of authority? Sure, some bad apples do get promoted, but most have their true colors come out in combat situations. Nothing indicates that LTC West had ever done anything to cause anyone to think he was anything other than a good military leader. It was not until several weeks after this incident took place that anyone said anything about it. Since the investigation came from the brass after the fact, that tells me that someone (who likely had no chance of ever seeing combat) stumbled on it and made issue of it. Nothing backs up your previous assertions that a subordinate felt he was incompetent and turned him in.