Quickly cordinadte a supression on target at a ridge line 2000 meters long and 150 meters high, 550 meters from you facing north.

Your assets are a 155mm battery, a Plt of 81mm mortars and you have two FA18's on station for 30 minutes.

Come on you are taking fire. Your people are being hurt. What do you do Stud?

That is management in the military son.

I fail to see your point. What do you mean?

This is decision making. And do you know that in commerce schools they teach Sun Tzu's work?

And look at the terms they use in everyday's life. You join a corporation, and they invite you to a "strategy meeting". And you hear your boss say "let's try a different tactic". And you receive an "intelligence report" on the situation "on the field". Oops, there was an accident, and they send you a "casualty report". And damn, the driver and the loader (transport vehicle) were wounded. They cant join their unit for two months. You call an agency to ask for "contractors" to replace them on the spot. They are expensive, but you cant afford to lose a vehicle. And you send someone to negotiate with the client as he is not happy as the delivery cant be completed on time...

That's the civilian life sir!

And I could take an example with a hospital too... But I dont really have experience in this domain... Life and death. Money and human lives.
Same set of skills. Project management.

You can put ANYTHING in "project management". From walking on the moon, to the little girl selling orange juice.

Originally Posted by KJ

The UN mandate is NOT to help the rebels.
The mandate is for protecting civilians.
Should Gadaffi be able to defeat the rebels without collateral damage according to the mandate the coalition couldn`t do a thing about it.
However in real life he would have to persue into atleast Banghazi and thereby become a threat towards the civilian populace and a target for the coalition.

The jury is still out on preemptive strikes under the UN mandate..
And yes the smaller vehicles could be taken out but under what mandate?
That they are winning?
Should they approach a city and be positively identified as hostile they would be. (protecting civilian populace)

As many of the UN mandates are, this one too is far from clear.

KJ sends..

Perhaps there has been substantial pressure on the coalition to intepret the resolution 1970 less liberally. My understanding is that it provides scope for liberal intepretation, such as taking out just about anything of military value, even if it is not attacking civilians at that point in time. Once military equipment is used to attack civilians it will be far too near them to attack from the air safely.

The resolution qualifies resolution 1970 with the wording "all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970" if the in so doing it would protect civilians.

They have even accidentally fired on the rebels themselves

At least 10 Libyan rebels are reported to have been killed when a coalition plane enforcing the no-fly zone fired on their convoy between Brega and Ajdabiya late on Friday night.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12944905

Accidents happen. Another reason to scale back the air strikes. As for taking out radar installations, SAM sites and some command and control facilities, they are a part of taking control of the skies over Libya.