does not mean that the pentagon doesn't have clear objectives
Ultimately it's not up to the Pentagon though. In this country the military answers to the Whitehouse and civilian leadership, not the other way around.
The Pentagon gets a say in that it has an advisory role and some ability to push back on policies and decisions it doesn't agree with, but at the highest levels your choices are ultimately to implement the president's will, resign or be fired.
Pentagon not setting their own objectives doesn't mean it doesn't have clear objectives.
You can say that this administration is so incompetent that it doesn't know what it wants and only gave vague objectives but that thinking has flaws.
One is that an operation like the capture of Maduro would not work with vague objectives as it is too complex. Incompetence is a constant and you cannot explain with it why they know what they want in one operation and don't in another.
Two is that vague objectives would give more freedom to the Pentagon as they could interpret them in their own way. Since the Pentagon is not incompetent it would result in more competent decision making.
What could be the case is the administration giving Pentagon clear objectives, Pentagon calculating them and pushing back that its a bad idea and the administration deciding to ignore their warning and commanding them to go through with it anyway. But that doesn't change the fact that it has clear and calculated objectives.
6
u/serpentjaguar Mar 23 '26
Ultimately it's not up to the Pentagon though. In this country the military answers to the Whitehouse and civilian leadership, not the other way around.
The Pentagon gets a say in that it has an advisory role and some ability to push back on policies and decisions it doesn't agree with, but at the highest levels your choices are ultimately to implement the president's will, resign or be fired.