There is an interesting debate to be had, even if the anectdote is without foundation:
- Would such an order be a legal order under military law and UK domestic law? Would refusal to follow such an order breach military law?
- What about the moral component? We recall the Battle of Britain pilot who rammed a German bomber apparently targeting Buckingham Palace, and who thankfully survived to tell the tale. Would a Taleban commander really inspire a similar intervention? Would this be worth a similar self-sacrifice?
- Strategy. Is this the best way to achieve a war aim? Humans and vehicles move at predictable speeds and could be bombed later, estimating their movements if required.
- Scenario. Would this be the Scarlet Pimpernel himself, Mr Bin Laden? Or would this be some other figure, of whatever importance but presumably replacable (as indeed Mr B-L may well be). Would there be credible intelligence suggesting that the commander was controlling an imminent WMD threat? (Hmm, we've heard that before!)
- Airframes and aircrew recruitment, selection, training and death benefits are not cheap. Would this be an appropriate use of equipment and personnel?
- Perhaps most fundamentally, leadership. I would expect that a good leader and commander would only issue orders when he or she would be confident of obedience. If the order was not obeyed, what reflection on the commander's leadership? What about the leadership above the commander - at the political level?
If the anectdote is true, perhaps the 2* was trying to generate such a debate.