The title here on HN is somewhat better than the original on Newsweek, which replaces "wanted to plan" with "planned". But I object to both.
The linked memo [1] consists of a table estimating the cost for the US to secretly acquire MIGs. Stop and go read it, it's only a cover form, a table estimating the cost to get some MIGs, and a failed attempt at redacting the 3rd page, which describes the effort. The final paragraph reads:
> There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a prevocation operation in which a Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. If the planes were to be used in such covert operations, it would seem preferable to manufacture them in the United States.
Emphasis added. But note that the documents do not describe the mental status of the authors, they're just listing facts. Any guesses by journalists as to what the actors behind the documents were thinking or what they desired to do are only guesses.
The US government is a very, very large organization, that asks a lot of questions and produces a lot of documents. You can also expect that someone, somewhere was also tasked to answer the question "how hard would it be for the Soviet Union to procure US aircraft and launch a false flag attack against themselves, and what can/should we do to mitigate this risk." Within the Soviet government, someone else investigated what it would cost to procure some F-86 and F-4 aircraft, and what it would cost the US to get MIGs, and what they could/should do to mitigate this risk.
I would argue that it would be irresponsible of both governments to not ask these questions. I would also agree that false flag operations and indeed war itself are reprehensible, and would hope that the decision-makers, armed with this information, would still make the right choice. But given the lives, dollars, and issues at stake, and the comparably tiny cost of answering the question, it would be irresponsible not to check.
I agree with the general direction of your argument, but wholeheartedly disagree that this doesn't constitute "planning", and find your de-emphasis of 'using the aircraft in a covert operation to attack the US', disconcerting.
There's a big ethical difference between "we wrote some generic plans for what now seems to be unethical but who knows how it could be interpreted in the future when decision makers ask for plans and expect something well-researched and not half-cocked, and it's better to be prepared than unprepared" and "decision makers actually decided that they want to do something unethical so they asked for the plans so that they could actually plan some real, unethical operation, and only because of some unforeseen reason did they cancel their unethical plans, and we journalists are reporting today on their unethical intentions."
Both are plans. Devising hypothetical plans is not unethical even if the plans as executed wouldn't be ethical.
Sorry, I was trying to emphasize that part in the middle of a quote, and only had italics to work with. I am accustomed to that syntax meaning that there was emphasis in the quoted section.
And regarding the definition of the word "planning", I think there is a useful distinction between intent to do a thing and consideration of the possibility. It is useful to consider what could happen if I (or my successor, or someone with my credentials) went rogue and tried to use my company's data to destroy it or cause harm. I agree that the CIA's morals may not be so altruistic as my own, but this memo is step 2 of a 10-step process to initiating a false flag op, not step 10.
Perhaps the Soviets wanted to know how hard it would be for the US to replicate one of their birds, and got an embedded spy to commission an investigation to find out for them.
A major problem with what you're writing here is that there is a very rich history of false flag attacks from nearly all governments, certainly including the US -- both planned and executed. For instance Operation Northwoods [1] was another false flag plan which would have the CIA carry out terrorist attacks against American civilian and military targets and then blame it on the Cuban government, to justify a war against Cuba. This plan made it all the way to JFK. Literally the one and only thing that stopped this plan from happening was JFK not cooperating with the CIA.
The 1953 Iranian coup [2] was organized by the US and CIA in particular. One of the many actions we were responsible for includes forming fake communist forces allegedly in support of the government. The government was not pro communist, but also did not actively crack down on them, so creating these fake groups who were both supposed to be communist and pro government worked doubly well. In any case these groups would then threaten and intimidate Islamic groups in the name of the government. This behavior culminated with these fake groups bombing the home of an influential Islamic cleric [3]. The whole idea being to turn the Islamic community against the government - and it worked. To this day the name of the individual who signed off on the operation is redacted, but it's rather evident that it was Eisenhower.
Ultimately governments tend to be consistently Machiavellian -- or at least populated by those willing to adopt such methods. And false flags are one of the most effective operations for shifting public opinion, creating justifications for war, and so on. The thing I find disappointing is how much people refuse to accept reality. Most people will not believe the two paragraphs I wrote above even though there is declassified material literally acknowledging exactly what happened. But it doesn't fit the way we naturally like to view our government, so most people resort to cognitive dissonance instead of acknowledging that their preconceived notions might not actually be correct.
I would have gone with the Gulf of Tonkin incident [1], in which it was later revealed that MACV-SOG had inserted a covert operations team (which was captured) and paid for an airstrike the night before North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked.
Congress was naturally not told of any of this before they passed the resolution that arguably led to the escalation of the war under Johnson.
> The thing I find disappointing is how much people refuse to accept reality. Most people will not believe the two paragraphs I wrote above even though there is declassified material literally acknowledging exactly what happened. But it doesn't fit the way we naturally like to view our government, so most people resort to cognitive dissonance instead of acknowledging that their preconceived notions might not actually be correct.
This is a critically important point when it comes to many (or most) facets of our society. I'd add to that the fact that most people don't like to admit they have been fooled. They cling to the narrative that has been instilled in them from birth, ("The US Navy, a global force for good") because that's the world they want to live in, that's the world they've been told they live in, and that's the world they have perceived their entire lives.
You mean us. Our elected officials made those decisions. Congress funded both. OIF/OEF did not go forward without the blessing of Congress. Sure, the Executive Branch lied about the key detail, but part of decisionmaking is deciding the risk of deception.
I don't think this is a particularly big deal, and certainly less serious than other publicly known events in the 1960s (and 1980s) that almost started WWIII, however...
> But note that the documents do not describe the mental status of the authors, they're just listing facts.
Do government documents normally describe the mental status of the authors, rather than sticking to facts (whether true or not)?
> The US government is a very, very large organization, that asks a lot of questions and produces a lot of documents.
What percentage are serious enough to get discussed by the National Security Council and/or Attorney General?
> Within the Soviet government, someone else investigated what it would cost to procure some F-86 and F-4 aircraft
I haven't seen any documents on that, but did the Politburo discuss how US planes could be used in a false flag attack? If they did, how would it justify or excuse the US doing so?
> it would be irresponsible not to check
It's irresponsible of the US government to not look into the possibility of murdering Americans in order to start WWIII?
I woke up at 4 am this morning. I had this terrible dream where I was in a war and was going to be evacuated and my children had to choose which toys they were going to take (because we couldn't carry them all). They could only take a few toy cars. It broke my heart and I couldn't get back to sleep. And this is nothing compared to what really happens in war.
I can't imagine how a human being could start a war and even provoke one like this. It is just terrible to know that people like this exist.
> It is just terrible to know that people like this exist.
Which ones, the capitalist dogs or the commie bastards? If you dislike those people enough, you'll want to go to war with them if you're in a position of power.
Neither of those stereotypes are truly responsible for the atrocities for which they are capable.
Wars only happen because peaceful citizens do not take responsibility for the war-mongers in their societies. We wouldn't have the wars we have, if we didn't elevate the war-making classes above the folds. We need to always be diligent and vigilant about keeping the war-machine in check - alas, none of us in the West really has a clean slate on this issue. Citizens are responsible for the actions of their governments; this means our militaries, too. The fact that we fail to take that responsibility, means atrocities continue to happen.
Since those terrible people exist, that’s why we have people doing these sorts of plans. It’s naïve to think that if we just abolish militaries that bad people go away. Letting the Soviet Union even exist amounted to being an accomplice to mass murder. They were the most evil regime in the 20th century in terms of body count. And that includes Hitler. Just the way they shot their own retreating troops during Stalingrad should turn one’s stomach. That doesn’t even consider their progroms as well as famines caused by farm collectivization. Look at Mao as well — literally millions died because of his aversion to sparrows. This moral relativism casting the US as some evil empire is ridiculous. The alternative to US hedgemony in the 20th century would have been far worse than anything imaginable. All of Europe would have been like East Germany. Asia would have been comparable to North Korea. War is a horrible thing, but sometimes the alternatives are worse.
This is dismissive. I don't foresee any valid contingency scenario that validates a "false flag," the fact that individuals in the government would think this way only gives credence to the most cynical out there.
Sure they didn't do it, but that they felt they had the authority to consider it (in a democracy, where they answer to us) speaks volumes.
It's a contingency scenario for the situation where the president (or senior officials) want to start a war. Yes it's a stretch but they might see it that way, "if the president wants to invade Canada then we need a plan to make it happen".
I only read your first link, but seeing how all it is is a contingency plan, so that the US would know how to proceed in a hypothetical war against Britain, I don't think I really have to look any further. The US likely has one for the EU, Russia, and China as well. And China and Russia definitely do, and the EU would if they had a true central military. It's just good planning.
Consider the world of information security, which I'm involved in. What's the best way for blue team (defenders) to protect their assets? Look at what the red team (attackers) are doing/targeting. That doesn't necessarily mean their active avenues of attack, but what are their trends, possibilities, means and ways. The same cuts true for the opposite scenario.
As someone who has spent time around Lajes Field, War Plan Gray is interesting seeing as how the U.S. de facto seized land on Terceira anyway. Much of my family came over around that time to make room for the military base.
Ironically, the Portuguese are very upset now that the U.S. is pulling more and more soldiers away from Lajes as it's leaving a hole in the local economy.
To my understanding, the US Military has "plans" for things it never intends to do. The plan is basically an outline for how such a thing might be done; it may be used for training or to recognize when another country is doing that thing.
Great. More fuel for the conspiracy theorists to claim that every single tragedy from 9/11 to Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Not that they couldn’t possibly be, but a 60 year old document that the government once considered a false flag operation doesn’t indicate in any way that the Vegas shooting was a secret CIA operation, but it’ll be used by nutters as “proof” of such.
If you are one of those people who pride themselves on nuance, this is the time for it. Is everything that happens in the world a false flag? No, I seriously doubt it. Crazy people and evil people exist and do crazy and evil things rather distressingly often.
On the other hand, is being concerned about false flags intrinsically just being a nutter? Equally unlikely to be realistic. First, we do have historical evidence that it is a thing that has happened before, and second, it's not like it's that crazy an idea. Follow the money & benefits, and there's an awful lot of people today and historically that would have an awful lot of motivations to pull one off.
If you think everything is a false flag, you're too paranoid. If you think false flags never happen, or at least that it's impossible anyone would pull one on you, first, you're too trusting. Second, that very trust ironically increases the chances that someone will consider it a risk worth taking. False flags work best when the very idea that something would be a false flag is easily pooh-poohed and dismissed. Dismissing them out of hand is not a great strategy, IMHO.
The fact that there's an internet competition to be the first to declare something a false flag is simply meaningless. There's an internet competition to be the first to declare a movie a disaster, the first to declare that a game is a disaster, the first to declare that someone's Ask HN project is worthless... it's all just irrelevant noise, not evidence of anything in any direction.
It is equally irrational to believe that all conspiracy theories are true as it is to believe that all conspiracy theories are false.
False flag operations certainly happen[1]. It just takes a long amount of time for whistleblowers to leak information providing information to confirm such a fact.
"Nutters" will find "proof" regardless of what they've been given.
What this _does_ prove is what the US is willing to even _consider_ doing to justify various things it wants to accomplish. So at some point you must at least consider that an event _could_ have been a false flag, don't you? Even if you come to the conclusion it wasn't, to write it off entirely without consideration is almost as irresponsible as claiming every major event is a false flag.
> What this does prove is what the US is willing to even consider doing to justify various things it wants to accomplish.
It doesn't even begin to prove that. It proves that the US military, which has plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario, has plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario.
The term "conspiracy theorist" was promoted in the wholly-owned MSM (look up Operation Mockingbird) by the CIA after the JFK assassination (clearly a cover-up, as it's coming out now--recently released autopsy report shows bullet entrance wounds in front and rear) to discredit people who questioned the official narrative.
> (clearly a cover-up, as it's coming out now--recently released autopsy report shows bullet entrance wounds in front and rear)
Really? While I knew that the papers had been released, I didn't know that they disclosed entry wounds in the front and rear of his head. I figured that would be much bigger news.
No, the Vegas shooting is strange enough to feed things by itself. The only hotel witness disappears for a to bit then does a weird interview on Ellen? If you pitched this as a TV episode it'd be rejected as too implausible. But that's probably true for lots of real stories.
Unfortunately, too strange to be true seems to be le mode et les temps.
The recent NSA leaker was named "Reality Winner" FFS. Everything has turned upside down. The whole state of current US government and politics is something from a terrible pulp spy novel sold in the discount bin at and off-brand pharmacy whose brand of bandages just don't ever seem to be able to stick, but they're a third of the price of the name brand so you'll just put some medical tape over the bad side.
I follow the news somewhat regularly and most days I have a moment where I have a hard time really reconciling the events. If somebody pitched a story like the current North American reality, I'd probably politely decline to listen further out of respect for better taste and sense.
The Vegas shooter is the least strange incident to have occurred (at least this is from an outsider to the US)—following the news cycle for the past 20 years says it's not all that uncommon, or hard to understand. He was a disenfranchised person with a possible mental disorder and a growing disenchantment with the society of which he's increasingly growing apart with easy access to purchasing high-powered weaponry. To me it seems like 1 + 1. These kinds of stories are far less rare, even in Canada, than you think. It's just that most of them are far less successful in their savage response to their feelings or ruinously-broken logic.
No, a tiny, tiny fraction turn out to be true. There are thousands of new ridiculous conspiracy theories every year. That one proves true every decade means nothing.
news report confirms another instance of the US planning fake attacks on its own citizens for political purposes and your response is to chastise conspiracy theorists? your frustration seems a little misdirected.
Maybe he read the accompanying document and saw that wasn't a document recording any instance of "the US faking attacks on its own citizens for political purposes", merely a document about possibly acquiring MiGs which noted in passing that if such aircraft were acquired or replicas built without it becoming known there would be more potential for use in "a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy operations or a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for US intervention".
TL;DR the plan was deemed impossible to pull off for a bunch of obvious reasons and nothing came of it.
This is basically meeting minutes of BSing at the water cooler.
The military/intelligence part of government cooks up all sorts of hair brained schemes for stuff that will never happen and even though it never goes beyond the brainstorming phase it still goes on record because the on the off chance that aliens invade Argintina it's really nice to just take an off the shelf plan that's close and adapt it and get sign offs rather than waste time trying to schedule a meeting with all the subject matter experts and make the plan from scratch with all the poor high speed decision making that comes with the fog of war.
So you should appreciate all the plans they consider? If they have a plan on how to stop a protest by killing the citizens with drones, or how to start a new war vs country X by killing children in a school and blaming it on X, this plan is fine, let's congratulate them for considering all possibilities including killing the citizens you are paied to protect. There are some things that you should not do, even war has rules.
Readit News
The linked memo [1] consists of a table estimating the cost for the US to secretly acquire MIGs. Stop and go read it, it's only a cover form, a table estimating the cost to get some MIGs, and a failed attempt at redacting the 3rd page, which describes the effort. The final paragraph reads:
> There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a prevocation operation in which a Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. If the planes were to be used in such covert operations, it would seem preferable to manufacture them in the United States.
Emphasis added. But note that the documents do not describe the mental status of the authors, they're just listing facts. Any guesses by journalists as to what the actors behind the documents were thinking or what they desired to do are only guesses.
The US government is a very, very large organization, that asks a lot of questions and produces a lot of documents. You can also expect that someone, somewhere was also tasked to answer the question "how hard would it be for the Soviet Union to procure US aircraft and launch a false flag attack against themselves, and what can/should we do to mitigate this risk." Within the Soviet government, someone else investigated what it would cost to procure some F-86 and F-4 aircraft, and what it would cost the US to get MIGs, and what they could/should do to mitigate this risk.
I would argue that it would be irresponsible of both governments to not ask these questions. I would also agree that false flag operations and indeed war itself are reprehensible, and would hope that the decision-makers, armed with this information, would still make the right choice. But given the lives, dollars, and issues at stake, and the comparably tiny cost of answering the question, it would be irresponsible not to check.
[1]: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-3...
Both are plans. Devising hypothetical plans is not unethical even if the plans as executed wouldn't be ethical.
And regarding the definition of the word "planning", I think there is a useful distinction between intent to do a thing and consideration of the possibility. It is useful to consider what could happen if I (or my successor, or someone with my credentials) went rogue and tried to use my company's data to destroy it or cause harm. I agree that the CIA's morals may not be so altruistic as my own, but this memo is step 2 of a 10-step process to initiating a false flag op, not step 10.
Only half joking.
We had plenty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squ...
The 1953 Iranian coup [2] was organized by the US and CIA in particular. One of the many actions we were responsible for includes forming fake communist forces allegedly in support of the government. The government was not pro communist, but also did not actively crack down on them, so creating these fake groups who were both supposed to be communist and pro government worked doubly well. In any case these groups would then threaten and intimidate Islamic groups in the name of the government. This behavior culminated with these fake groups bombing the home of an influential Islamic cleric [3]. The whole idea being to turn the Islamic community against the government - and it worked. To this day the name of the individual who signed off on the operation is redacted, but it's rather evident that it was Eisenhower.
Ultimately governments tend to be consistently Machiavellian -- or at least populated by those willing to adopt such methods. And false flags are one of the most effective operations for shifting public opinion, creating justifications for war, and so on. The thing I find disappointing is how much people refuse to accept reality. Most people will not believe the two paragraphs I wrote above even though there is declassified material literally acknowledging exactly what happened. But it doesn't fit the way we naturally like to view our government, so most people resort to cognitive dissonance instead of acknowledging that their preconceived notions might not actually be correct.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
[3] - http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-...
Congress was naturally not told of any of this before they passed the resolution that arguably led to the escalation of the war under Johnson.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Back...
This is a critically important point when it comes to many (or most) facets of our society. I'd add to that the fact that most people don't like to admit they have been fooled. They cling to the narrative that has been instilled in them from birth, ("The US Navy, a global force for good") because that's the world they want to live in, that's the world they've been told they live in, and that's the world they have perceived their entire lives.
> But note that the documents do not describe the mental status of the authors, they're just listing facts.
Do government documents normally describe the mental status of the authors, rather than sticking to facts (whether true or not)?
> The US government is a very, very large organization, that asks a lot of questions and produces a lot of documents.
What percentage are serious enough to get discussed by the National Security Council and/or Attorney General?
> Within the Soviet government, someone else investigated what it would cost to procure some F-86 and F-4 aircraft
I haven't seen any documents on that, but did the Politburo discuss how US planes could be used in a false flag attack? If they did, how would it justify or excuse the US doing so?
> it would be irresponsible not to check
It's irresponsible of the US government to not look into the possibility of murdering Americans in order to start WWIII?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
I remember reading about this around 20 years ago in James Bamford's excellent NSA book Body of Secrets.
I can't imagine how a human being could start a war and even provoke one like this. It is just terrible to know that people like this exist.
Luckily, my youngest hasn't had to experience this. But his two older sisters have.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Which ones, the capitalist dogs or the commie bastards? If you dislike those people enough, you'll want to go to war with them if you're in a position of power.
Wars only happen because peaceful citizens do not take responsibility for the war-mongers in their societies. We wouldn't have the wars we have, if we didn't elevate the war-making classes above the folds. We need to always be diligent and vigilant about keeping the war-machine in check - alas, none of us in the West really has a clean slate on this issue. Citizens are responsible for the actions of their governments; this means our militaries, too. The fact that we fail to take that responsibility, means atrocities continue to happen.
Deleted Comment
This isn't a plan that was enacted.
That's why so many in this thread are rightfully decrying the plans of our government to start a war with a false flag attack against our own people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
U.S. Government planned to invade Azores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Gray
U.S government does a lot of contingency planning
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-rainbow...
Sure they didn't do it, but that they felt they had the authority to consider it (in a democracy, where they answer to us) speaks volumes.
Consider the world of information security, which I'm involved in. What's the best way for blue team (defenders) to protect their assets? Look at what the red team (attackers) are doing/targeting. That doesn't necessarily mean their active avenues of attack, but what are their trends, possibilities, means and ways. The same cuts true for the opposite scenario.
But Puerto Rican hurricanes aren't on the radar apparently.
Ironically, the Portuguese are very upset now that the U.S. is pulling more and more soldiers away from Lajes as it's leaving a hole in the local economy.
One wonders what the actual rate of successful false flags are. Was the USS Liberty a failed false flag of opportunity?
On the other hand, is being concerned about false flags intrinsically just being a nutter? Equally unlikely to be realistic. First, we do have historical evidence that it is a thing that has happened before, and second, it's not like it's that crazy an idea. Follow the money & benefits, and there's an awful lot of people today and historically that would have an awful lot of motivations to pull one off.
If you think everything is a false flag, you're too paranoid. If you think false flags never happen, or at least that it's impossible anyone would pull one on you, first, you're too trusting. Second, that very trust ironically increases the chances that someone will consider it a risk worth taking. False flags work best when the very idea that something would be a false flag is easily pooh-poohed and dismissed. Dismissing them out of hand is not a great strategy, IMHO.
The fact that there's an internet competition to be the first to declare something a false flag is simply meaningless. There's an internet competition to be the first to declare a movie a disaster, the first to declare that a game is a disaster, the first to declare that someone's Ask HN project is worthless... it's all just irrelevant noise, not evidence of anything in any direction.
False flag operations certainly happen[1]. It just takes a long amount of time for whistleblowers to leak information providing information to confirm such a fact.
[1]https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admit...
What this _does_ prove is what the US is willing to even _consider_ doing to justify various things it wants to accomplish. So at some point you must at least consider that an event _could_ have been a false flag, don't you? Even if you come to the conclusion it wasn't, to write it off entirely without consideration is almost as irresponsible as claiming every major event is a false flag.
It doesn't even begin to prove that. It proves that the US military, which has plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario, has plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario.
Really? While I knew that the papers had been released, I didn't know that they disclosed entry wounds in the front and rear of his head. I figured that would be much bigger news.
The recent NSA leaker was named "Reality Winner" FFS. Everything has turned upside down. The whole state of current US government and politics is something from a terrible pulp spy novel sold in the discount bin at and off-brand pharmacy whose brand of bandages just don't ever seem to be able to stick, but they're a third of the price of the name brand so you'll just put some medical tape over the bad side.
I follow the news somewhat regularly and most days I have a moment where I have a hard time really reconciling the events. If somebody pitched a story like the current North American reality, I'd probably politely decline to listen further out of respect for better taste and sense.
The Vegas shooter is the least strange incident to have occurred (at least this is from an outsider to the US)—following the news cycle for the past 20 years says it's not all that uncommon, or hard to understand. He was a disenfranchised person with a possible mental disorder and a growing disenchantment with the society of which he's increasingly growing apart with easy access to purchasing high-powered weaponry. To me it seems like 1 + 1. These kinds of stories are far less rare, even in Canada, than you think. It's just that most of them are far less successful in their savage response to their feelings or ruinously-broken logic.
That's not to say that there's anything to the 9/11 truthers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
which is the bigger offense?
This is basically meeting minutes of BSing at the water cooler.
The military/intelligence part of government cooks up all sorts of hair brained schemes for stuff that will never happen and even though it never goes beyond the brainstorming phase it still goes on record because the on the off chance that aliens invade Argintina it's really nice to just take an off the shelf plan that's close and adapt it and get sign offs rather than waste time trying to schedule a meeting with all the subject matter experts and make the plan from scratch with all the poor high speed decision making that comes with the fog of war.