Humane tactics

You do realize presidents don't authorize specific methods unless it's a mission of paramount importance, right? Delegation... it's a thing. Ever seen either call in a drone or missile strike in real time? That's because they don't. Even for all of Trump's blunder, even he's not stupid enough to do that. It would take a real troglodyte to pull that off.
"run bro, I'm bombing you r..... ooohhhhhh CS:GO.

At a system/administrative level--the same methods were used. My point is still valid.

Unless you weren't talking to me, in which case okie doke.

It was but it just kinda bounced off you. <_< >_> Nice.

I’m not saying Obama was a saint- and it’s a valid point that many times presidents get blamed for things that aren’t their fault, or for doing the same things done by predecessors. That’s said however we have to be careful what we blame on a president or their “Administration.” While certain key players and staff change when presidents do- the day to day operators of most government agencies like intelligence, military, etc. remain the same. Technically a great deal of what happens down to a local military engagement is “authorized” by the president since the authority of military command is passed down. The president empowers ranks like General or Admiral who then empower their officers who empower NCO’s and GE personnel. Each layer of a chain of military command is empowered to perform actions based on the authority above it- ending at the president. The authority of the president is granted to them via the people through representatives in congress who can veto or must approve...

... certain actions such as the declaration of war. It’s where the phrase “chain of command” is derived. Each link exists in a circle of authority and cannot function without the other links. However of the MANY documents that come across a presidents desk that require their direct signature- a president has not theyime or ability to comprehensively review each one. They rely on advisors and experts to council them. Most presidents do not have a throuough grasp of military tactics and all the related disciplines. They rely on professional officers of the military to advise on martial aspects and weight the opinions of professional diplomats and others to the potential effects of a given course. Most matters of internal policy get the “rubber stamp” and are pushed through under the basis that the armed forces are professionals and know how to run themselves without being micro managed. However a president CAN take personal interest in specific areas and pressure or even force action...

... from other branches such as the armed forces. It’s tough to say what an individual presidents actual stake or even involvement is in any given incident unless signed documents can be produced- and even then all we know is that at some point someone gave them an order to sign and they either signed it, or someone on their team explained that they should sign it, so they did. We are as guilty in examining it because we likely do not understand the scope of information they were acting on when they put an order through. My point is that it’s the managers at the organizational level we should look at usually. Presidents exist as scape goats for career lifetime politicians and buerocrats to pin things on and keep their names out of the crosshairs of public accountability. Presidents change every 4-8 years but agency directors do not.