Decisions made in wartime, in business, or even in a football game are almost always made with imperfect information. One rarely knows with certainty when and where and with what force an enemy will attack. One can estimate and extrapolate to determine if selling a product at a given price will increase or decrease revenues, but there are no guarantees. A defensive coordinator might know that his opponent throws a pass 85% of the time on third and eight, but that still leaves a 15% probabability of a running play.
The hallmark of a successful leader is the ability to make optimum decisions based on (to copy an Obama phrase) “less than optimal” information. “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is a well-worn phrase, but it still rings true. Absent having perfect information, decision makers need to choose the best available option based on whatever information they do have.
Panetta’s excuse that they didn’t have enough information doesn’t pass the smell test. Most major battlefield decisions are undoubtedly made with far less perfect intelligence. There were drones overhead, a live audio feed, and a videotape now deemed Top Secret, no doubt because of how damning its contents are to Obama and his pals. This was hardly the “fog of war” that has thwarted military leaders in the past. The information that was available was so good, in fact, that it speaks to a political reason for the inaction, rather than a military one. And most intelligent Americans (i.e., conservatives) understand this.
Indeed. History is littered with leaders who would have given their firstborn to have the intel capabilities of the modern American President, but who acted, in their time, nonetheless.
Very thoughtful post. Thanks.
BTTT.
Good points.