>>Hmm, that's about as bad an analogy as you could have come up with. My point is this, if the president now has the time to check with his top level staffers on this on a weekly basis, don't you think they will understand that he's taken an increased, PERSONAL interest in this? I think so.
>
>As far as I know hierarchies, the pressure from the top usually produces better excuses, demands for more funding, and a rush into ill-prepared action. Scapegoats pop out of the blue, and lot of "product" is manufactured, to cover for lack of real results.

I'm not talking about a programming project. I'm talking about a military exercise. I've not been involved in those, but I have ben involved in drug interdiction operations and had the Sheriff in our face about the operation. He didn't get involved in the details, but his mere presence at some of the higher level meetings let everyone know, this op needed to be done right and soon.

>The real weapon to use, the CIA, was greatly misused over the years, to the extent that the legislators found necessary to put a lid on some of its activities. Now it's not what it once was, but that doesn't mean army should be put to do the spies' job.
>
Yeah, the CIA was neutered under Clinton and hopefully will get back to full strength in the near future.