"... which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday."
“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The attack went on for hours. Why didn't/couldn't our military go in? Was it for the same reason that no military was there to protect them in the first place, that the Obama administration did not want the appearance of a military presence? Were they watching, thinking the attack should quickly succeed, allowing them to say it all happened so fast... and then it wasn't fast?
Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities.
Abu Khattala spoke to a New York Times reporter Thursday from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. “These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding,” he boasted. “But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I’m even going to pick up my sister’s kids from school soon.”
Posts
239 comments:
1 – 200 of 239 Newer› Newest»"Brought to justice" shows that Obama doesn't get it.
You don't bring the enemy to justice, you kill him.
What if an administration acted in a truly criminal, shred the constitution way, and his party, 47% of the nation, not only didn't care but actively resisted an investigation?
It just gets stranger and stranger. There is almost nothing about this administration's actions/inactions that make sense to me, other than how they relate to managing Obama's public image. Very Dear Leader indeed.
"The attack went on for hours. Why didn't/couldn't our military go in?"
The DOD lawyers didn't answer their cell phones.
Why couldn't we do more?
Willie cut the military by 40% after the fall of the Soviet Union as a "peace dividend" (payoff to the people that supported him in the '92 election) (we would have had enough Regular Army to do Iraq without the ARNG) and now we're cutting more.
Roger J or AllenS can say for sure, but who do we have in Vicenza or Germany any more?
Could we lift an airborne unit from Europe or is everybody back in the US of A the way trolls like Oop want?
PS This is what people were watching while Barry rolled over and went back to sleep.
The guy should be fucking impeached and shot for this.
Complicit or incompetent.
Either is a Firing Offense.
Maybe I'm being naive about the way US forces are actually deployed, but a "quicker military response" is a question begging term. Despite what you might see in a James Bond movie, there is no rapid reaction force that is ready to parachute into distant countries on a few minutes, or even a few hours, notice. Yes, I suppose the fleet in the Med could have scrambled fighters, but to do what exactly? "Rescue" was, I suppose, at best always 12 to 24 hours distant.
The attack went on for SIX hours!
Maybe I'm being naive about the way US forces are actually deployed, but a "quicker military response" is a question begging term. Despite what you might see in a James Bond movie, there is no rapid reaction force that is ready to parachute into distant countries on a few minutes, or even a few hours, notice. Yes, I suppose the fleet in the Med could have scrambled fighters, but to do what exactly? "Rescue" was, I suppose, at best always 12 to 24 hours distant.
It would take about 18 hours to fly a Ranger company (as an example) to Benghazi.
(again, if Roger or Allen want to correct me on time, I will happily stand corrected)
Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities.
Its not as if he made any anti-Muslim "hateful" video.
White House, through media surrogates,is attempting to re-write the story again. Known facts be damned.
The attack went on for six hours, they had drone surveillance, and they didn't call Obama??????
“These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding,” he boasted.
Sure he boasts. Obama and his minions won't even acknowledge that he exists. But they have put the guy who made the crappy video in jail in CA. He won't have his day in court until after the election.
Did the drone have offensive capability?
Is it possible Obama was afraid to make a decision, to take action and to be responsible? This would be just like many people we run across who just cannot bring themselves to take responsibility.
edutcher--I cant help you on this one--been away from the European command too long--used to be an airborne outfit in Vicenza but that was 35 years ago. To your question about rapid deployment forces. Putting together any rapid deployment force with 4 to 6 hours notice is damn near impossible, unless they have trained for just such a mission. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a marine amphibious unit might have been the best that could be done. Ranger outfits are stretched pretty thin, and honestly, in the time frame in Libya, some sort of air support might have been the fastest response. But I am not sure I would want an AC130 unloading on an area target were I in the area.
sorry I cant be of more help
Did the drone have offensive capability?
Even if this drone had offensive capability, I dont think our drone commanders can shot w/o a clear mission with all the chain of command approvals.
To the best of my knowledge there are SEALS based in Rota, Spain. Have known a few who were stationed there.
@Lem - I ask again; over 6 hours they didn't bring Obama into the loop? Surely he has the authority.
I doubt a military response could have prevented the killings, or at least, the killing of the ambassador. They could have sent a drone to fire a few missiles to clear the crowd, I guess. But I would think the new Libyan government, such as it is, would have to clear that. Unless it were considered as part of the NATO bombing campaign? Hmm.
Edutcher--please if I may--an addendum to my comments. I am not privy to current rapid response plans, but given the Benghazi situation, I sincerely hope some one in the military planning hierarchy is working on some type of rapid response plan. These plans would, I hope rely on some dedicated and trained force and with the use of some type of air cover. The down side is that such operations would of necessity be conducted in urban areas with the potential for widespread collateral damage. That, I think, would be the political consideration.
"David Ignatius, a reporter's columnist with excellent sources in the Obama administration and the intelligence community, reports: "Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept 11 attack on the U.S. consulate as a reaction to the Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently into its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
This is why we haven't heard from Petraeus. The CIA has evolved into a leftist bureaucracy that stymied Bush on Iran and lied about WMD because they had no sources in Iraq.
We should disband the CIA and start over. Maybe military intelligence could be a new focus. The CIA has 50,000 newspaper readers in Virginia and about 20 covert agents around the world. Gary Berntsen knows this. I read his book.
Reul Marc Gehrect knows this. They have very limited language skills. My daughter knows more Arabic than 98% of the CIA.
This suggests that Petraeus is going careerist on us. I'm very disappointed.
One of the things that they used to do in Iraq when they wanted to disperse a crowd of "unfriendlies" but didn't want to drop actual weapons for fear of killing friendlies or civilians was to have a fighter jet do a "show of force" - fly in low, pop flares, etc., just let them know that you're there. It's kind of a bluff, but it did work sometimes.
Seems like that sort of thing would've been worth attempting, at least.
Roger J. said...
edutcher--I cant help you on this one--been away from the European command too long--used to be an airborne outfit in Vicenza but that was 35 years ago.
I believe what's now the 173rd was there at one time.
PS No problem. I think you're right about an SOC MEU, but I read they're being cut, too.
Maybe Skyler knows.
If Obama had any integrity at all, he'd give that Peace Prize back, but he doesn't.
From Gehrect's bio on Wiki
Gerecht was a harsh critic of the Central Intelligence Agency's performance in the 1990s against the Islamic terrorist target, and has often written about the difficulties of reforming the American intelligence establishment. A disciple and friend of the Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, Gerecht has nevertheless argued that Islamic fundamentalists, not Muslim liberals, will be the engine of political reform and democratization in the Middle East. His views have often been condensed into the remark, "No Thomas Jefferson without Martin Luther".
Michael K said...
This is why we haven't heard from Petraeus. The CIA has evolved into a leftist bureaucracy that stymied Bush on Iran and lied about WMD because they had no sources in Iraq.
And now we know why Petraeus ended up at Langley.
Not that Ryan isn't a good man, but imagine Romney/Petraeus.
We should disband the CIA and start over. Maybe military intelligence could be a new focus.
If memory serves, that's what's been happening.
Again, this makes what Candy Crowley did all the more absurd and dangerous. But that's a sad side note.
What's troubling is there seems to be no way to make this absurdity with Islamic terrorists end in a way that any of our leaders are willing to do. This all started long ago. We have a presence in the Islamic Holy Land (both through Israel and troops on the Arabian Peninsula). Second, most of the leaders in the Middle East are despots and redirect anger in their own Nation at the US. Some are angry to blow themselves up. Which triggers a response from us. And thus the double-bind cycle continues.
There are two ways to end this mess. One is to abandon Israel. The second is to become energy independent so we don't care what happens in the Middle East. The first option presents a terrible choice I'm not prepared to make. The second is a no brainier and should have been done already.
In this election, the reason I am supporting Romney is that I think he's most likely to actually put us on the road to choice number 2. I can't imagine America giving up on Israel and I don't think we should. But peace in Israel would be much easier if we didn't need Arabian oil.
I am doing this by memory, so likely to get some details wrong. Supposedly, the embassy/consulate had asked to rent/keep renting a DC-3 (aren't we talking WWII there?) for emergencies like this, but were told to use commercial aircraft due to the cost. The problem there was that any relief forces in Libya would have to wait for the next scheduled flight then, and then try to get a whole lot of gear and ammo aboard (hence the request for the dedicated plane).
There are/were apparently Marine forces onboard ships in the Mediterranean, and some of those are trained for fast insertion. But I think that the problem was that they were in the wrong part of the Mediterranean, probably much closer to Syria and Egypt. And, yes, someone would have had to give the orders, and that probably meant the President, and he either wasn't informed or slept through his 3 am call.
Again, this makes what Candy Crowley did all the more absurd and dangerous. But that's a sad side note.
What's troubling is there seems to be no way to make this absurdity with Islamic terrorists end in a way that any of our leaders are willing to do. This all started long ago. We have a presence in the Islamic Holy Land (both through Israel and troops on the Arabian Peninsula). Second, most of the leaders in the Middle East are despots and redirect anger in their own Nation at the US. Some are angry to blow themselves up. Which triggers a response from us. And thus the double-bind cycle continues.
There are two ways to end this mess. One is to abandon Israel. The second is to become energy independent so we don't care what happens in the Middle East. The first option presents a terrible choice I'm not prepared to make. The second is a no brainier and should have been done already.
In this election, the reason I am supporting Romney is that I think he's most likely to actually put us on the road to choice number 2. I can't imagine America giving up on Israel and I don't think we should. But peace in Israel would be much easier if we didn't need Arabian oil.
Edutcher--you have me on a roll now and are saving me from spreading mulch on my flower beds.
I see some major issues involved in such operations, most of which a bureaucratic. If I am not mistaken, operations in Libya would be under the command of the Africa Unified Command, and much would depend if the special operations forces would be under the command of Africa Command. If not Special Operations command, would control such special ops folks and they would have to "chopped" to the African Command. Its a bureaucratic mess, but one that is immenently solvable if we decide to act. I spent some time on the Joint Staff, and I dont see where they can be responsive in hours.
If they had a drone over the consulate, they obviously knew from Day 1 that there was no "spontaneous protest" involved here.
I seem to recall an instance during Clinton were our people had a big Osama Bin Laden type target in our sights and when the call went up the chain of command to give the go ahead to take him out... someone high up NSA balked, Holbrook, Sandy Berger... and it didn't go all the way up to Clinton... allegedly.
Obama is very likely similarly insulated... for the simple reason that Obama cannot afford to be making decisions that could harm him politically... so close to the election.
This is not the time to be commandeering in chief.
Biden caught saying that "Under law Planned Parenthood cannot perform any abortion." What? Really? Huh? Yeah. He said it.
at about the 1:50 mark
Democrats just lie and lie and lie.
No one in the media seems to care.
AllenS,
If Obama had any integrity at all, he'd give that Peace Prize back, but he doesn't.
If Obama had the average person's integrity reserves, he would never have accepted it in the first place.
The question that hasn't been asked or answered is why the consulate in Benghazi was open to be begin with in light of the previous terror attacks against our's and other's consulates there and second what was Amb. Steven's doing there without a security detail that could reasonably be expected to handle an attack since that is hardly something that would be unexpected, especially on a 9/11? And given the situation, what task was so important that it required the ambassador to be in Benghazi?
Why bother to have drone surveillance if nothing was to be expected to happen? The trolls snark about republicans cutting the security budget but can't explain why there are Marine detachments in places that don't need them and not in places that do need them. This is going to turn out to be a lot worse than Watergate. If Zero had a brain, he would tank it now because otherwise he will be replaying the role of Nixon. And unlike Clinton if impeached, he will be removed. There are too many scandals in this administration and special prosectors will have a field day investigating them all.
Why is a NYT reporter able to converse freely with the perpetrator, and CNN was able to obtain Steven's diary?
The Obama administration is either indifferent or incompetent.
"Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest."
Maybe we could ask the Israelis to do what we are apparently unwilling to do. Of course, they're probably not answering calls from the White House at this point.
Wasn't there an issue with Obama not attending security briefings? If this is so, why is this being addressed here? Biden saying "we didn't know" isn't an excuse if the president abandoned his responsibility. And one can argue that after being challenged, he started attending the briefings. But that doesn't work either. Because there isn't really a way to play catch-up in National Security. Obama discusses the pain in greeting the caskets of the fallen. And I'm sure it is painful. It's especially painful when coupled with the knowledge that it could and should have been prevented with a little more attention to the most solemn obligation of the office he has the privilege of holding. Kick in the extra bonus of abandoning free-speech, and its just all-around terrible.
The simple answer was that we should have closed the consulate in Benghazi when the British did.
End of problem. That building was a villa and could not be hardened without starting over with a new building.
This is what leading from behind looks like. What a perfectly modern liberal idea, with the predictable outcome. Imagine if you called the cops because gangs were attacking your house, and they told you they'd love to help but their policy is to lead from behind.
What were you people thinking with this guy? You weren't were you. You were simply hoping. Thanks for taking your vote so seriously.
Bin Laden is dead and AQ is on the run. Nothing to see here folks.
Checking my latest issue of Sky Soldier magazine (173rd Abn.), The Herd is still in Vicenza, Italy, and just deployed again to Afghanistan.
When I was with the 82nd Abn. Div. in 1967, we always had a couple of companies on "Red Alert". That's when you are all ready to deploy immediately, and everyone had to be in the barracks. They usually ended with a night drop. Exciting.
That was a long time ago, and with so many married now, I doubt if you could still do that.
Rightwingers have focused too much on 20-20 security staffing hindsight - and on the sideshow of the precious 1st Amendment rights of the scumbag Nakoula who stated he wanted to incite violence against Americans.
There are 3 timelines:
1. Events in a deteriorating security environment, and who knew what, when, and who made the final decisions..and who that should have been involved but wasn't.
2. Events in the 8 hour attack. Who knew what, when, who was not involved in decisions that should have been. The timeline of notifications and sharing realtime video and audio coming from the attack. Rumors that the Marine raedy force on Sicily was ordered on the Tarmac and waiting within an hour of the attack for the 40 minute flight in. That Aviano assets were scrambled and two US warships off Libya's coast with 80 cruise missiles had firing solutions within the hour as well.
None were ordered into action.
Are those milblog rumors true?
Remember that you do not necessarily need to go in and kill all the attackers to stop the attack. The attack could have ended in moments if Al Qaeda and other military capable leaders of the attack had news the Marines were coming and cruise missiles and warplanes were hitting their assets (and the US well knew where the radical Islamist buildings, and camps were.)
And any action could have led the smart people doing the assault on Americans to conclude they were being flanked and could soon be blasted in the open by landing Marines or gunships/fighter jets...unless they stopped and melted away.
Be sure that during the whole attack, AQ was monitoring radio traffic and had spotters along the coat in communication with the attackers, to warn about any "incoming US assets"
3. The 3rd timeline is for the duration of the Coverup and Holders "FBI Investigation". Who knew what, when. Who gave the orders to do or not do things? Why the lies? Why did the FBI insist that the military not secure the Consulate, only to fail to get there for 3 weeks? Why no reports from US survivors? Why have the Libyans not interviewed elements of the attacker leadership?
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.
“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
Obamas failure to take responsibility is prompting the players to point fingers away from themselves... self preservation is a hell of a motivator.
Bottom line... We have no leadership in this country.
Everytime a Dem President since JFK has tried to play possum as a military strategy we get a replay of Blackhawk Down. Why can't our sworn enemies understand we are surrendering to them until after the next election and leave us alone? Putin understood.
I blame McGovern.
Occam's razor, Obama was asleep so there was no one to order the US military in to help.
This and the "negotiating with Iran" thing is going to make the next debate interesting. The next shill has got to be even better than Crowley.
Why bother to have drone surveillance if nothing was to be expected to happen? The trolls snark about republicans cutting the security budget but can't explain why there are Marine detachments in places that don't need them and not in places that do need them. This is going to turn out to be a lot worse than Watergate. If Zero had a brain, he would tank it now because otherwise he will be replaying the role of Nixon. And unlike Clinton if impeached, he will be removed. There are too many scandals in this administration and special prosectors will have a field day investigating them all.
Playing devil's advocate a bit, and answering these one by one...
My understanding is that the Marine detachments at embassies and the like are primarily ornamental. Sure, they are Marines, so can fight, but don't typically have heavy arms nor the fighting edge that their combat brethren have.
I think that there is a chance that the drone was retasked from doing something else in the region. We don't know for a fact that it was there when the attack started, but I would think it natural and likely that if there were one flying in the region, it would be diverted to Benghazi when the attack started. And, right now, we don't know if it was armed or not, or who "owns" it, the military or the CIA.
A couple of problems with impeachment and then conviction/removal. The impeachment, per se, would be slam-dunk. The Republicans aren't likely to lose the House, and may even pick up some seats there. But, the Senate is a different story. A couple months ago, regaining the Senate seemed slam-dunk. No longer.
And, then the clincher - remember the joke going around - about how scary the phrase "President [Slo Joe] Biden" was? I would suggest that that alone might protect Obama from impeachment and removal. Unless someone found a way of removing him as physically unfit before he had a chance to get his VP confirmed (but, that is unlikely, as it would seem to violate the norm set with Nixon getting to appoint Ford before resigning).
C4 points the significant issue: our failure to act only encourages our enemy. Everyone of these situations where sit and do nothing encourages those who evalute our resolve against the actions we take.
I dont know if a marine unit could have accomplished anything given the time line (and a marine unit would have been my choice). I dont think they could have been there in time to save any lives--
At the risk of sounding callous, there are the tactical considerations (a relief mission which would have been problematic) and the strategic response demonsrating US resolve. We clearly failed on both accounts.
pm317 said...
The attack went on for SIX hours!
I take some shots.
1. an unmanned Predator does not mean an armed Predator. Fuel, weapons and sensors are a trade-off. If your mission is to put, for instance, a cell phone location package in a loiter pattern over a non-hostile country, then hellfires might be left off and fuel taken. The CIA or USAF CSG would be flying that mission under State ROE but taking mission orders from NSA.
2. How long does anybody think it takes to launch missiles into a friendly city? After all, the reason we didn't have enough security in Benghazi is because State wanted a light footprint. Think the CIA had clearnce to launch w/o approval in country? From an Ambassador that was a bit busy?
3. How many seconds of that 6 hours did it take to close the assault team from outside the wall into the Consulate buildings? There was no defensive fire, so my guess is under 60 seconds of that 6 hours were needed to get our forces in the "deadly embrace" where support fires are useless. That close quarters hide and seek resulted in 2 of the deaths. The two ex-SEALS died later, from a well placed morater round to the roof of the secret CIA safe house. Perhaps an armed UAV could have helped there.
4. Airborne? WTF? Our Army AB is 1600k North. 2 hours by C130. You want a combat jump by a company in Benghazi? Less than a company? no way into a high AAA environment without strike cover. figure 12-24 hours of planning. By helo? beyond range. Stage to Sicily and helo fro there? again 24 hours. That's the DoD side. State and WH clearance to go to war? your guess.
5 Marines on an LPD off the coast? If there was one, wouldn't the article mention them?
My guess: if there had been any pre-approved contingency plan in place, some State weenie would have already pointed to a DoD failure. There wasn't any request from State in the months leading up to the attack.
bottom line. DoD can rapidly execute, pre-planned and pre-approved operations, given geographic limitations. But State is in charge in a country we're not at war with...
mortar of course
Damn Drill--I hate it when you bring up facts :)
Not bad for a tanker and as you know we are not known for our judgment--just our willingness to ride to the sound of the guns.
I think one big issue is that there has been too much hollywood which revels in these sorts of scenarios. The public comes away with an inflated view of just what precisely our military forces can do--and they can do almost anything GIVEN time and preparation. Neither time nor preparation were available in the Benghazi situation.
"And any action could have led the smart people doing the assault on Americans to conclude they were being flanked and could soon be blasted in the open by landing Marines or gunships/fighter jets...unless they stopped and melted away."
One missile from the drone placed at the front gate of the compound might have done the trick.
Add in that during this attack, some consideration has to be given to the Obama people being hit with multiple crises in several countries. 11 separate events, all but Benghazi triggered by the scumbag Nakoula's video.
It wasn't Benghazi in isolation. It was the Tunisia embassy and Egyptian one being overrun. Yemen's embassy was under full-scale attack with all inside in fear of their lives. Reports pouring in of angry mobs enraged by the provocation of defaming the Prophet calling for death of Americans, throwing things in, people killed or injured by national police guarding the embassies from the Nakoula -triggered mobs - in Lebanon, Pakistan, Morocco, Bangladesh, Jordan, Indonesia, Londonistan, Turkey, Syria, Sudan, NIgeria.
The shit had hit the fan, and made it much harder to disaggregate Benghazi from other mobs and violence with multiple events, many of which (especialy the full attack in Yemen) had high potential of injury and death and got as much if not more attention than the Benghazi one (as Nakoula hoped for)
Of course this begs the question...with the shit hitting the fan that bad ...why was Obama appearing to be not involved at all except in a brief speech "deploring senseless violence" and his operatives spending 100% of their energy attacking Romney? Why did Obama then fly off, focusing on his fundraiser and big celeb gala with Beyonce`???
Drill, you are correct that no ready reaction force could have saved those 4 men, however, when they first requested help, an infusion of force could have saved them.
This is no different than dialing 911 here in the states. When you have to do that, it's probably too late for the polce to help you.
An armed man, is a man you need to respect.
"Drill, you are correct that no ready reaction force could have saved those 4 men, however, when they first requested help, an infusion of force could have saved them."
Respirators like firemen wear could have saved them.
Being in Tripoli could have saved them.
Any insight into the middle east could have saved them.
This is no different than dialing 911 here in the states.
When seconds count, police are just minutes away.
Brilliant move, throwing the spooks under the bus. CIA strikes back hard.
Because Obama wanted Americans to die, and the United States to look weak.
He is a typical whitey-hating black lefty. He wants to burn down his master's plantation and see his family dead.
Michael K--you are correct about an on site force. Unfortunately, there was none and that, IMO, is the question the Obama administration needs to answer.
Thanks, Michael and eddie. I'll take that as an affirmation of what I said.
If any capable strike force was in fact too far away to help, then that was incompetence. It's a violent, anti-American area with vulnerable Americans on duty there, and they aren't there in secret. Every embassy or safe house with important assets should at least have a unit of some type close enough to protect those assets. The plan was murder, kidnapping, and intelligence gathering. Nobody was even within hours of being able to protect against that? Totally unacceptable with resources in Germany or other places just putting in time.
Whores, you moby asshole, Just leave. Nobody is fooled, and you're stinking up the place.
Fuck off, whore.
Rusty wrote:
"This and the 'negotiating with Iran' thing is going to make the next debate interesting. The next shill has got to be even better than Crowley."
Leaving aside the comedy of righties everywhere still whining about Crowley, what you regard as "interesting" (I cannot think of a blog anywhere where the word "interesting" is used more ridiculously by proprietor and commenters alike, but such is the way with these things) actually is a political minefield.
Better hope your guy doesn't come too clean on party ambitions for full-fledged military engagement with Iran. The broad majority of voters, including some moderate Republicans, will not support that. You are going to have to sneak that in if you really want it (i.e., win on other things, then do it).
You're welcome.
Every embassy and consulate should have a underground bunker. If they are over run call in Broken Arrow. Napalm would be my choice, let the host country sweep up the ashes.
I think everyone should settle down. This decision was apparently above Obama's pay grade so it went to the ObamaCare death panel and they decided that these guys time had come. So, we should all give thanks to Dear Leader for sparing us these useless lives.
Bruce you are missing the point. In a Nixon replay, by the time the hearings are in full force and televised the democrats will throw Obama and Biden under the bus. They will give them the same option the republicans gave Nixon and Agnew. The total failure of this Administration is so bad and so inexcusable that the democrats in the senate will push them to quit if hearings and investigations turn out to be as bad as it is starting to appear.
The second point being there was no reason to have the consulate open given the circumstances prior to the attack and even less reason for the ambassador to have been there. This was hardly an unforeseen or highly unlikely possibility. The same in Egypt and the same in Yemen and the same in Tunisia.
The problem for Zero now is any punitive military action he takes now will look like wag-the-dog and won't be done sufficiently hard to have any real effect. However he has if he loses practically forced Romney to take a very strong punitive reaction from the beginning of his administration just to show he isn't Obama and to send the message the US won't take this sort of stuff lightly while he is in charge.
The CIA was wrong about Korea, wrong about Tet, wrong about Saddam in 90 and wrong about him having WMD's in 2002. Maybe it needs to be disbanded and purged of the moronic mindset that leads to these conclusions and reconstituted with capable people at the higher levels.
"If any capable strike force was in fact too far away to help, then that was incompetence."
It's much worse than incompetence. It was policy. Obama didn't want the "bad optics" of security. The naivete of this administration is lethal.
Original Mike said...
One missile from the drone placed at the front gate of the compound might have done the trick.
Let's presume, since "secretly doing CYA" State HQ was worried about Benghazi security that the UAV was flying Combat Air Patrol for the Consulate. I don't think so because if it had been, the failure by the CIA/USAF would have made the papers a month ago.
I'll let you assume it was armed. But the attack came out of the dead of night. Nobody has said we had UAV video of the assault. What we know is that State HQ could tap the feed of the security cameras.
So you are assuming these facts not in evidence:
1. UAV was armed
2. UAV cameras were targeting the consulate
3. they had pre-release to make an operator level decision to fire into a city without involving legal review, State approval, command approval.
4 that would turned back an attack by jihadis
in peaceful Benghazi ? :)
@Drill SGT
This is State Dept guy talking. What could have been done in those 6 hours that was not done, in your opinion? I accept what you say because I don't know these things but 6 hours seems like a long time but like you say only if you have a plan.
2) What was the response of the NCA?
The attack began just before 9 pm Libya time; it lasted at least six hours. The attack, therefore, took place from about 3 pm to about 9 pm Washington DC time on a regular work day, a Tuesday, and on a day, September 11, during which the capital is particularly attentive to reports of terror activity. The DS reps have testified that they knew about the attack almost immediately, and, thanks to the very expensive and elaborate DS op center, followed the attack in "near real time." So what happened? What did Secretaries Clinton and Panetta, CIA Director Petraeus, DNI Clapper, NSA Donilon, AFRICOM, SOCOM, and President Obama do? Somebody sent a slow flying UAV that managed to get there in time to monitor at least part of the attack. There apparently was a hastily put together rescue effort launched by the Embassy in Tripoli which encountered stiff resistance. But what did the NCA do? There are reports that the Pentagon determined that it would take 24 hours to get a rescue team on the ground in Benghazi. So? Why wasn't it launched? Nobody apparently knew that the Ambassador already was dead. One thing I have learned from years in the "hard countries": Do not let the creeps think they can get away with something. They should always fear an immediate and devastating response. American warriors on the ground with blood in their eyes would have sent a powerful message to the jihadis. The British ran the raucous North West Frontier with a handful of Political Agents (PA) who bribed the tribes and made it clear that a PA could conjure up the British Army if things got out of hand. Is it true that the President did not summon his national security team? That he just noted the information and then went off to Vegas on a fund-raiser after giving a vacuous speech at the Rose Garden?
Cubanbob
When has the Democrats ever thrown one of their own under the bus for moral deviation or incompetence or lying? A gay House member sleeping with an intern, no. A senator killing a campaign worker, no. A president humping an interns face in the Oval office, no. The list goes on and on, Democrats lionised them.
@Drill Sgt: I'm just speculating, I'll be the first to admit. But I'd say two things:
1) If the attack ocurred over 6 hours, authorization shouldn't be an issue; surely the could have prevailed on Obama to weigh in.
2) What actually was done was not optimal.
harrogate - I'm sure most Americans do not support a nuclear armed Iran either.
McTriumph said...
Every embassy and consulate should have a underground bunker. If they are over run call in Broken Arrow. Napalm would be my choice, let the host country sweep up the ashes.
Real Embasssys have a crpyto vault. Benghazi was neither an embasssy nor purpose built. it was a rented house inside a walled compound. nothing more.
The real purpose, and I'm serious, of Marines is to safeguard the crypto vault until the NSA crypies and the CIA staff can smash and burn. If they buy that time on the wall, or holding the inner perimeter instead, so much the better. State Diplomatic Security Group has both the personnel security (e.g guard the staff) and monitor the local/contract exterior security.
Newer Embassies also have a safe room for staff, but not all do.
There is a U.S. African Command headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany (WTF?, over!) whch seem to be a chairborne unit not commanding any troops to speak of. However, if such a unit exists, why did they not arrange for some standby miltary response in Libya, since it seems obvious that such might be needed on short notice?
The failure isn't the Obama Administrations inability to respond within the period of the attack - as other commenters here with military experience aptly point out - the failures are 1) not providing sufficient security to defend US personnel in the first place; and 2) lying about the reasons and the nature of the attack, for purely electoral political reasons.
So yes, it's another Obama fail; more of which we'll see if he's reelected.
How many morons are voting in the US?
We'll find out, soon enough.
Foc News is running its special on Benghazi right now. Devastating in many different ways, beginning with the ordeal of the victims.
The Obama administration has a lot to answer for.
"We didn't know" is a pretty lame defense.
You veterans are making interesting comments here. I am in no wise fit to judge.
I can judge the political vaudeville act, though. Obama probably still has a few days to go on TV, Reagan-like, and say roughly "my heart says we were trying to do right, but my head tells me otherwise".
We know the State Dept. personnel in Libya were told to sit down and shut up.
Did the same thing happen to US AfriCom?
No way it was not clear from the get go that this was a military attack, not a mob.
Anyone paying attention could have seen that.
Of course Obama was not paying attention.
And where was Biden during all of this, by the way?
If we can hit a camel in the butt, we could have hit the terrorists.
What did the New York Times know, and when did they know it? The place is run by weasels and fools.
Alex, agreed on that. It would be "interesting" to come clean on the tension between these two things and see how people feel. The Obama Admin's claims that the sanctions have crippled them economically and that we have no need to gin up the Adventure Machine has traction, I believe.
There's also the problem of, what do we do after we "take out" their R&D? Is it another forever Adventure with embassies and Shopping Zones the size of the Vatican? Have asshole shills like Krauthammer thought it through at all, or are they returning to the "roses will be thrown at our feet" canard?
In short, I think it impossible in this moment, that a straight up argument for more military adventure would do anything other than alienate voters in droves. And Romney knows this, even though he knows that ideology within his party yearns the other way. All it takes is one public slipup that you are planning to go to war. Will he keep it to himself?
McTriumph said...
Cubanbob
When has the Democrats ever thrown one of their own under the bus for moral deviation or incompetence or lying? A gay House member sleeping with an intern, no. A senator killing a campaign worker, no. A president humping an interns face in the Oval office, no. The list goes on and on, Democrats lionised them.
10/21/12 2:42 PM
The American people aren't going to get exercised enough to remove a president or member of congress for sexual indiscretions. Stealing money, yes. Deliberately leaving our people in harms way for no valid reason, yes. Teddy I'll give you that one. But if the amount of mierda that comes out is sufficient, the party still has enough of a sense of self preservation to cut off the gangrene lest it kill it completely.
Isn't there an asprin factory we could bomb?
Drill SGT - You keep going with the time-consuming bureacratic process of approval theory to how government must respond to an attack. Meetings, layers of approval to change ROE.
I point out that within 40 minutes of the Islamoids hitting the WTC, the White House situation room was fully staffed except Bush and his chief of staff. And in those 40 minutes:
1. Dick Cheney, in the Presidents absence, ordered fighter jets up to shoot down planes full of Americans under control of Islamoids - if they could find them in time.
2. Ordered the same splashdown for any incoming international flight that failed to respond to signals.
3. Ordered Defcon3 .
4. CAP over NYC, DC, and other cities.
5. Ordered the entire US air transport system grounded.
So I don't buy the idea that it was just bureaucratically too tough for the White House to do anything, or had to wait on State or Libyan "permission" to go in and stop the attack or go after the attackers.
They would just have to live with the State Dept and the Libyan's rancor if we had intervened to save Americans or find and whack some of the Al Qaeda Ansar al-Islam fighters. But State and the Libyan government failed to protect those people.
We don't need their fucking permission.
We have intervened before in foreign lands without State or the leaders of the fucked up place we are going into inviting us to do so.
From the outset, this seems to be another show of "law enforcement mentality" we are presently cursed with by too many lawyers in power, when dealing with enemy.
The FBI had the lead, it was announced. They have done squat so far.
RIP George McGovern, for whom I voted in 1972. We could use the likes of you today.
"There are 3 timelines"
Cedarford ripped off his talking points from this article published yesterday in the WSJ:
C-fudd gets talking points from Rosen
No relation, but apparently Fudd is a tool of the Jooooo/Bolshevik/media conspiracy bwahahaha
Why didn't the military respond?
A couple of points as to why
(1) there were no military assets at risk. Benghazi was state/CIA. US military assets (what they are in country) were held in Tripoli. While true, i hold this as not likely at all. The point of the US military is protect all US interests an not simply there own. They know this obviously.
(2) there was no one home from the civilian chain of command to authorize use of US forces, which would have more than likely required an actual ROE in order to go in country, and no civilian in the chain could make the call. I find this to be more than likely the most plausible reason.
(3) there were no acceptable military assets close enough to theatre to do anything. You can't simply jump in the car and drive from Tripoli to Benghazi- it takes the better part of a day. Therefore, any military action would have required at a minimum several attack and transport helicopters, plus refueling capabilities and CAP (to be safe). From what i understand the US sixth fleet is currently stationed in the Med, but I am not sure how close to Libya they are. My guess is that this played somewhat into thinking.
PM317 quoted The British ran the raucous North West Frontier with a handful of Political Agents (PA) who bribed the tribes and made it clear that a PA could conjure up the British Army if things got out of hand.
That sort of solution works in classic nation state, or at least like classic A-stan, where the tribe left its calling card. Romans worked the same way.
Brit's called it: Butcher and Bolt.
It was said that a Roman citizen could walk from one end of the known world (by that I mean beyond the border of the empire) to the other. If he was harmed, you could expect that a Roman force would be dispatched to ensure that the tribe's or nation's neighbors noted the lesson, because the tribe was going to be gone.
It would take a "cowboy" POTUS to take that approach today. Obama? No F'ing Way...
"RIP George McGovern, for whom I voted in 1972. We could use the likes of you today."
I'll take the late-in-life McGovern, who discovered the heavy hand of government on small business.
My guess is that President McGovern would have had carrier based jets moving over the consulate at low altitude with high noise. That would have dispersed some of them, and diverted the attention of the rest.
As the details of this drawn out engagement become clear, the culpability of Obama in going to bed, and then to Vegas, is obvious. As is the decision, for which his Secretary of State must take the blame, to reduce security.
I would also say that a really curious president, who attended his intelligence briefings regularly, might have had a shot at asking questions about the whole security situation in Libya, and how we were responding.
Who knows what that might have led to?
David said...
RIP George McGovern, for whom I voted in 1972. We could use the likes of you today
Laugh, laugh, laugh. McGovern would have blamed us.
Thanks for the info, Roger and Allen.
I've read about a plan to forward deploy some Ranger units the way SF used to be, so that might be something to consider.
Lem said...
I seem to recall an instance during Clinton were our people had a big Osama Bin Laden type target in our sights and when the call went up the chain of command to give the go ahead to take him out... someone high up NSA balked, Holbrook, Sandy Berger... and it didn't go all the way up to Clinton... allegedly.
It was Berger. It came up during the 9/11 hearings, IIRC.
lol. I love how I really riled a nerve telling the truth here about why Obama acted like this. As if telling the truth is mobying; only someone drinking the koolaid would buy that.
Occam's razor, bitches.
Here is again, why Obama didn't have the military intervene:
Because Obama wanted Americans to die, and the United States to look weak.
He is a typical whitey-hating black lefty. He wants to burn down his master's plantation and see his family dead.
there were no acceptable military assets close enough to theatre to do anything. You can't simply jump in the car and drive from Tripoli to Benghazi- it takes the better part of a day. Therefore, any military action would have required at a minimum several attack and transport helicopters, plus refueling capabilities and CAP (to be safe). From what i understand the US sixth fleet is currently stationed in the Med, but I am not sure how close to Libya they are. My guess is that this played somewhat into thinking.
The Fox News report this afternoon makes it clear that an effective security force from Tripoli was on the ground in Bengazi by 1 AM. That force was able to enter the city and relieve the pressure on one of the buildings.
When was that force called? How much more quickly could it have been there? Did they have a contingency plan or were they making it up on the fly? Why wasn't there American air over the city immediately?
And of course, given the deteriorating security situation, why did they reduce security one month befpre the attack? Indeed, did the attackers have knowledge of American security so that the withdrawal of this force invited the attack?
Did no one think that 9/11 meant anything anymore? Why was security not particularly enhanced on that date?
"Indeed, did the attackers have knowledge of American security so that the withdrawal of this force invited the attack?"
The consulate was attacked the first time Stevens was there with reduced security. They knew.
Benghazi has gone from being a "gotcha" for Romney to being a trap for Romney.
The "intelligence community" and the media, notably WaPo are spinning the attack to explain the deceitful behavior of the Prez and his consorts.
Now that he has some documentary "evidence" he will be even more offended, more offended I tell you, by the accusation that he and his administration put politics ahead of the truth.
The ammo is still there, but Romney needs to be careful how he uses it. Petraeus by his inaction has apparently declared for Obama and Romney must not put him on the defensive by attacking the credibility of the CIA.
This segment has some interesting information from a former CIA Station Chief and @ others that were CIA folks. Ignore the host but listen to what these three gentlemen say about the news of the attack making it to the White House Situation Room and what could have possibly been done during the attack and immediately after.
http://johnnydollar.us/files/121020justice.php
We don't need a full-scale war, Harro.
Atlas Shrugged had this headline Obama lied, Americans died: Libyan Attack was botched kidnapping to trade WTC bombing Blind Sheikh. If this was part of a plot to allow the Ambassador to be kidnapped, so the Muslim Brotherhood could exchange him for the Sheikh, why would 0bama do anything to defend the embassy? Of course the embassy would have stripped down security. Of course 0bama could go to bed, not knowing the fate of the ambassador.
The troll said:
"Better hope your guy doesn't come too clean on party ambitions for full-fledged military engagement with Iran. The broad majority of voters, including some moderate Republicans, will not support that. You are going to have to sneak that in if you really want it (i.e., win on other things, then do it).
"
Iran has been at war with us, not Israel, since 1979. You and like minded lefties may think it is Israel's problem but we are at least as likely a target. A container ship in New York harbor is all the "delivery vehicle" they need. It may be possible to avoid a catastrophe but Obama has not the balls to do it. Everybody in the world knows that.
Your fellow lefties thought that Reagan would bomb the USSR. It wasn't necessary. You folks know nothing about defense.
Belmont Club talked about that recently.
"Dick Cheney, in the Presidents absence, ordered fighter jets up to shoot down planes full of Americans under control of Islamoids - if they could find them in time."
I'm sympathetic to your point but do you know how many interceptor fighters we had in the entire US on 9/11/01 ?
17. Total.
Re: Drill Sgt:
It was said that a Roman citizen could walk from one end of the known world (by that I mean beyond the border of the empire) to the other. If he was harmed, you could expect that a Roman force would be dispatched to ensure that the tribe's or nation's neighbors noted the lesson, because the tribe was going to be gone.
Lord Palmerston cited the Roman policy in the famous Don Pacifico affair. Civis romanus sum etc.
But this is not just a citizen -- this is an ambassador we are talking about. The apposite historical antecedent is neither Rome nor Britain, but the Mongol subjugation of Persia, which was prompted by the murder of one of Genghis Khan's ambassadors. The flail of god, indeed.
I TOTALLY REJECT any attempts to generate manipulative and negative opinion of the greatest and best POTUS in our collective world history.
Obama is perfect. He is an expert of every-thing. He is a scholar of every-aspect.
Should you continue on this negativity of our POTUS, I will have to stop inviting people to join me at the Oval Room nightly to discuss 2nd term plans.
We were running a covert weapons recovery mission in Libya -- to recover RPGs and other weapons we gave the rebels. The rebels ousted Gaddifi and oh no! -- turns out they're crazy radical Islamists. So we needed to get our weapons back before our blown foreign policy got even more embarrassing.
Stevens was there assisting in the covert mission. It appears Obama decided weapons mission more important than securing Stevens (which would have tipped our hand on the mission). Did a blog post last night with supporting links.
Big drones flying across the sky,
Throwing shadows on our eyes.
Leave us
Helpless, helpless, helpless
Also, the "strawberry frappe" detail really sells the depiction of total American impotence. Good job by the reporter, I guess, if he wanted to make our government look like utter fools.
Also, apropos of nothing in particular, all the news reports talk about how the FBI was doing the investigation, and the FBI couldn't get on site, and this and that.
Why is the FBI involved at all?
I mean, the FBI are fine and all, but what do they bring to the table here? Don't we have military intelligence people or CIA or NSA people or something who should be handling this? Wire fraud, prostitution, money-laundering, gun running (ah), domestic terrorism, white collar crimes, kiddy porn -- these all seem like subjects where the FBI has a deep reservoir of experience. This --- not so much. What the hell are they doing? Shouldn't this matter be handled by State and DOD?
Balfegor said...
Also, the "strawberry frappe" detail really sells the depiction of total American impotence. Good job by the reporter, I guess, if he wanted to make our government look like utter fools.
==================
Agree.
But if you go to some Muslim countries, be sure you try some of the desserts and drinks. Not "doing alcohol" - they have put centuries into perfecting non-alcoholic refreshments. Spices, fruits, flower nectars, honey, infusions of aromatic non-spices.
Absolutely-fucking-delicious!!!
We have lots of drinks, desserts, sherbets, sorbets, pastries and candies that all go back to "Muslims developed them".
It sure isn't worth going to lovely Saudi Arabia simply to try them but Saudi spiced chicken and rice, and a drink of coastal Yemeni flower honey, goats milk, with yogurt, myrrh, and cardamon - is amazing!
(And they love strawberry and orange-cream frappes.)
In No Easy Day, it's written that the SEALS' rules of engagement in Afghanistan became ridiculously political in 2009. So maybe forces near Libya had the same designed-by-a-committee-of-Obama-lawyers ROE.
"I mean, the FBI are fine and all, but what do they bring to the table here? Don't we have military intelligence people or CIA or NSA people or something who should be handling this? "
The FBI interrogated the Cole bombers and one of them got the leader to confess by showing him that the FBI guy was a better Quran scholar. I have discussed this with my daughter and can't find out if he was a sworn agent or a contractor. It's a pretty good story. It doesn't reflect too well on the CIA, I might add.
Romney will be DESTROYED tomorrow. See the outlook at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/mondays-debate-puts-focus-on-foreign-policy-clashes/.
ON NBC MTP, Tom F. destroyed Romney and the entire GOP.
Foreign policy is like a foreign language for GOP.
I'm sympathetic to your point but do you know how many interceptor fighters we had in the entire US on 9/11/01 ?
17. Total.
Can't be true, without some caveat. Truax Field in Madison alone has more F-16s than that.
Another shooting at a Spa in Milwaukee.
Three people dead.
I go to a spa constantly, very scary.
tits.
Michael Ryan said...
" there is no rapid reaction force that is ready to parachute into distant countries on a few minutes, or even a few hours, notice. "Rescue" was, I suppose, at best always 12 to 24 hours distant."
This is exactly the problem. With repeated attacks on Western diplomatiic and other interests in the ME under attack for a few months, There should have been some preparations. Diplomatic compounds are the US territory. And I do not believe for a moment that there were no CIA reports to warrant such preparations, as well as I do not believe that Obama was not informed on what is going on at the earliest moment.
The fact that Petreus is silent, or, I suspect, silenced, speaks volumes. I might be wrong, but to know that we should know what really went on, but the truth is not coming out any time soon, if at all, if Obama to have his way.
OMG, I am channel surfing and come upon the movie, The American President and he just said attack (on Libya) after cutting his date short with Sydney -- he was just about to kiss her. Libya, really?!
Isn't unmanned Predator redundant?
L-Mom touched on something I have read very little about.
Why this Consulate?
What motivated the jihadis to storm this Consulate? Of course they hate us. But that was being borne out by demonstrations, not full-scale weaponized assaults.
Perhaps understanding the tactical objective would then make the rest of these puzzle pieces fit together.
"It sure isn't worth going to lovely Saudi Arabia simply to try them but Saudi spiced chicken and rice, and a drink of coastal Yemeni flower honey, goats milk, with yogurt, myrrh, and cardamon - is amazing!"
Do they sell this stuff at the Pali or Paki-owned liquor store next to your flophouse, Fudd?
They let them die, not just on that night, but over the course of time. Preventable murder
Perhaps the people involved in the attack weren't on the president's kill list so the drone was helpless.
I understand Bret Baier's special on Libya "Death and Deceit in Benghazi" is quite good. It's being re-aired today on FOX and the video is available at various websites.
"I'm sympathetic to your point but do you know how many interceptor fighters we had in the entire US on 9/11/01 ?
17. Total.
Can't be true, without some caveat. Truax Field in Madison alone has more F-16s than that."
F 16s need pilots. Most of the fighters that were in the air defense system on 9/11/01 were flown by airline pilots who were flying airliners.
Read Touching History a book by an airline pilot about that day. She interviews the US Air Force chief who was responsible for the sorry ability to defend the country.
Even Durbin destroyed the GOP.
GOP is a fair game. On NBC MTP, Friedman mocked Romney and the GOP.
Now, on Fox, Durbin.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331073/durbin-compares-benghazi-football-game-eliana-johnson
This is OUR PLAN. To mock GOP from now to election day.
GOP == They know NOTHING.
This is a sad story that just goes to show what the Obama administration is really all about.
Drones.
"Your fellow lefties thought that Reagan would bomb the USSR. It wasn't necessary. You folks know nothing about defense."
What an ignorant-as-fuck statement by Michael K. Which is true to form, for Michael K.
With somma you people it really is as if Iraq were not something the GOP foreign policy experts still think "worked." Dipshits. As if the same people who were Bush's foreign policy advisers are not in Romney's inner circle as well.
When you are upholding Krauthammer and Bolton and McCain as "experts" in the wake of the our decade long foreign policy tragicomedy of errors, you have jumped the shark.
You want to talk about Reagan and about MAD? Please. Of course you do. I cannot think of a worse crime that a political candidate could foist on the people, than running for office with intentions to start wars, without saying that is on their agenda. Both parties have been guilty of this--but one a helluva lot more than the other!
Also, Michael K. calling someone a troll is like Bill O'Reilly calling someone an elitist.
Thanks for the reference, Michael. I remain skeptical, but I'll check it out.
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack...
...and an unsuited President in the White House.
We should put out an Amber alert for Inga/Ellie.
When last seen she was trying to sell the anti-Muslim video narrative and nobody was buying it.
So we are describing a very distraught person ;)
"I'm sympathetic to your point but do you know how many interceptor fighters we had in the entire US on 9/11/01 ?
17. Total.
Lots of USAF Jets in the US, but the Air Defense mission belongs to the Air National Guard. (ANG).
So at 8 or so bases around the US there were planes with fuel, real wartime missiles and pilots on ready alert.
Lots of other planes in other places, but those lacked one of more of: fuel, weps, pilots, orders. Those could have been launched in 2-24 hours. Sound familiar?
It cost lots to keep planes on alert...
the Nakoula -triggered mobs - in Lebanon, Pakistan, Morocco, Bangladesh, Jordan, Indonesia, Londonistan, Turkey, Syria, Sudan, NIgeria.
All that, and you really think they were spontaneous reactions to a video? They deliberately overwhelmed the system, such as it was.
I would have to assume that the moojies were sitting on the possibility of a helicopter rescue mission, and they had stinger crews on rooftops all over town and along the likely approaches from the ocean.
The Ambassador was nice. But the real target was the QRF. They wanted to recreate a BlackHawk Down scenario, and maybe even wipe out a company of US troops after downing one or more helos.
This also explains why they were in position to ambush those guys on the way to the safe house, and
is corroborated by the fact that they had at least one mortar laid on the safehouse they already identified.
The crowd that overran the embassy? That was the tip of the iceberg. The real combat power, I suspect, was held in reserve, to be committed against a rescue force.
That's how I would do it if I were in their shoes, too.
Why did you miss me?
Obama is under attack here and you are AWOL.
Distraught? Why, should I be? Lemmy, I've been hanging out at the diabetic thread, in between baking some more pumpkin walnut chocolate chunk scones, finishing up cleaning my garden for winter and putting away some garden furniture.
Why did you miss me?
Ooops, now look, our comments are out of order. I had to correct pupmkin to pumpkin. No eating pups.
harrogate said...
Rusty wrote:
"This and the 'negotiating with Iran' thing is going to make the next debate interesting. The next shill has got to be even better than Crowley."
Leaving aside the comedy of righties everywhere still whining about Crowley,
Are you saying she wasn't working for Obama?
what you regard as "interesting" (I cannot think of a blog anywhere where the word "interesting" is used more ridiculously by proprietor and commenters alike, but such is the way with these things) actually is a political minefield.
Yes. An interesting political mine field. Interesting to see how Obama will try to justify his incompetence. Interesting to see if Romney will take advantage of this administrations miss steps deliberate or not.
.
Better hope your guy doesn't come too clean on party ambitions for full-fledged military engagement with Iran.
Pure projection on your part.
The broad majority of voters, including some moderate Republicans, will not support that. You are going to have to sneak that in if you really want it (i.e., win on other things, then do it).
If you're referring to the war in Iraq, as I recall both the democrat house and senate members were on board with it.
You're welcome.
Of course I am
F-4 Phantoms are no longer on active duty, but they would provide an excellent show of force. They were so loud, they would make your insides shake. It's my understanding that an overflight of them stopped a coup in Manila one time.
Former Phantom Fixer.
Titus said...
Another shooting at a Spa in Milwaukee.
Three people dead.
I go to a spa constantly, very scary.
tits.
10/21/1
Is "spa" code for something? Because I can't think of a least likely place to incite a shoot-em-up
"Maybe I'm being naive about the way US forces are actually deployed, but a "quicker military response" is a question begging term. Despite what you might see in a James Bond movie, there is no rapid reaction force that is ready to parachute into distant countries on a few minutes, or even a few hours, notice. Yes, I suppose the fleet in the Med could have scrambled fighters, but to do what exactly? "Rescue" was, I suppose, at best always 12 to 24 hours distant."
Several months previously there had been rapid response teams (whatever they were called) stationed in Libya (not in distant countries) that would have had no more than hours long response times, possibly less.
They were withdrawn from the country.
So Americam Politico became Ali Karim Bey?
I see that America's Politico has now transmorgified himself into Ali Karim Bey..
Now isn't that special..
Ken--thanks for the trip down memory lane re the F4s--loud and smokey. The Israeli's modified the F4s for 30 years--not much they couldnt do.
Or maybe he's just a multiple-personality kinda guy..
They may have prepared the talking points, but did anyone here really believe that it was anger for that video? Even if the majority of people had taken violent umbrage, that would not have been the real reason. There is no such thing as truly spontaneous reactions. There is always a tinder box beneath it.
I was just hoping that they put that out for tactical reasons to confuse *them*, not us.
Rusty you don't seem to see that the Iraq Adventure left people not wanting to repeat. They may not care so much about the term "neocon" (or even know it), but Military Adventurism is not something that is animating the majority.
You do not know this, in some part, because you refuse to think about WHY people would ever reach such a skeptical place with regards to Adventurism.
But then, on some level you know the only way your guys can get away from entangling us again is to lie eve better than they did last time. Romney, I confess, is nicely cut out for the lying.
RE: F-4s: We have F-4G "Wild-Weasel" ac mothballed to "save money" for the F-35 pigs which can STILL perform mission profiles that NO OTHER ac in the active inventory can perform as well..
Could Ali Karim Bey, be Titus's wife?!
The E models (J-17 engine ) were loud, but the older
D models (J-15 engine) were louder. They sounded like Godzilla. You could always tell which model was in the landing pattern. I don't know about the G-Model wild Weasels.
If not already deployed elsewhere, AllenS's old unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade (a.k.a "the Herd") is still garrisoned at Vicenza, Italy. They are parachute drop capable as part of their mission. Can't see the Obama administration deploying them, however....it'd be rude ya' know?
@Roger J ... The down side is that such operations would of necessity be conducted in urban areas with the potential for widespread collateral damage.
Yep, and these days the "collateral damages" are US military KIA's in Afghanistan.The ad ministration has written ROE's that are untenable. From 2001 through May 2010, we had KIA's in Afghanistan of 1000. As of this month, it is over 2000+. Hello?
Is our old enemy suddenly tougher now, or are we weaker due to political interference?
Ask Petraeus...he's another General who rang up dingbat Terry Jones in 2010 about insulting our enemy. So did Gates. Just like Tweedledee Dempsey.
And anyone thinks our government is doing anything proactive? Or is meddling and interested in protecting itself?
Afghan KIA's 2001 thru May 2010 = 1000. And 2010 to Oct 2012= 2000+
Do you feel safer yet?
Please.
"Respirators like firemen wear could have saved them."
That's what it sounded like, certainly. I know, hindsight and all that, but I thought... What do you put in a "safe room?" If I, knowing nothing, had to decide what to put in a safe room I might not think of oxygen or respirators. I'd probably figure first aid, at least. Food. Water. Even if the room was only intended for a stay of a few hours. Guns. Ammo.
Some lessons are the most expensive to learn and obviously the people who's professional job it is didn't ever ask what would happen if the bad guys started all the buildings on fire. Same sort of thing when *after* Desert Storm the military required every person to have a power of attorney on file so that *someone* could get to their pay checks to buy groceries for their kids if they got deployed; *after* Pinatubo blew the Air Force had to have developed plans for communications protocols if all infrastructure was out and all computers were down. (I'm taking that last one on faith, because at the time it was a fuck up of unbelievable magnitude.)
So from now on safe rooms had better have respirators and fire suppression systems.
Barn doors and horses and all that.
But the deliberate draw-down of US security and response teams inside of Libya in the months previous is what it is.
Lewiston Maine: Many local candidate signs, an occasional Romney sign, no Obama signs
Dereliction of Duty, plain and simple.
It it was a movie the villain would be the Turkish diplomat.
I mean... people asked how the terrorists knew where Ambassador Stevens was going to be in time to plan their attack.
One report noted that AC-130 gunships were at three "nearby" bases.
Also note that despite multiple live video streams, Obama went to bed!
Is six months an exaggeratedly short time-frame, for how long it would take a Romney Admin to land us in another Adventure? I am thinking they would need something more like a year, a year and a half to make it look like somehow, they didn't want to all along.
harrogate said...
Rusty you don't seem to see that the Iraq Adventure left people not wanting to repeat.
Really!
Then what the Hell was that thing in Labia last year?
If the traitorous Lefties keep their mouths shut, it's amazing how much kinetic military activity the American public will support.
They're not the ones who call our troops baby killers and torturers, are they?
correction: ... And 2010 to Oct 2012= 2000+
Should read "...from May 2010 to Oct 2012 increased from 1000 to 2000+
Ahhhh, ed. Good to hear from you as always. I do wish that the opposition to Obama continuing the idiotic Afghan Adventure, had not drained down, and I agree there is lots of hypocrisy in this.
But also, you might take into account, there are other factors other than hypocrisy. I know plenty of people who are just Resigned. Who just have given up believing that we can ever stop these ignorant Adventures, our soldiers dying for nothing, civillians in foreign lands dying for nothing. More and more it just seems to be "what we do."
But still it remains true that the GOP started two major wars this century and is itching to start a third one. And the third one is guaranteed to be every bit as retarded as the first two have been--maybe even moreso.
No, that's 1 major war started last century by Jimmy Carter (remember the Shah?) and hopelessly bungled by Willie Whitewater and now Choom.
(Iraq and A-stan are separate campaigns like Normandy and New Guinea in WWII)
But clearly harro's (or is it some phony folksy's, the snark is so similar) lack of willingness to address my question means he has no rebuttal.
Game, set, match.
"Is six months an exaggeratedly short time-frame, for how long it would take a Romney Admin to land us in another Adventure? I am thinking they would need something more like a year, a year and a half to make it look like somehow, they didn't want to all along."
This might be a point to make except for the verifiable fact that there hasn't been a Democrat president in my lifetime that disliked "adventures."
Why this doesn't count when Democrats do it, I haven't a clue. But that seems to be the case. Does saying the right words really mean those "adventures" didn't happen?
The liberal brain is a mysterious and wondrous thing.
Romney will get elected. Iran will nuke something. Democrats will blame Romney for starting an "adventure."
Romney will get elected, he will start a trade war with China, BINGO!
Obviously either Choom was off on a golf course, going to a fund raiser, or there was no one in the vicinity of the drone on the kill-list.
IMO the main strategy since the Obama team took over has been to protect Muslims from Israel so that Muslims will then appreciate him so much that they temporarily stand down their sworn duty to allah to exterminate Christians who blaspheme that the prophet Jesus is God's son.
First the Arab spring revolutions must grow and become a crisis so Obama has cover to step in and make peace by declaring Jerusalem to be a UN protectorate under international political control.
The joke about ending the Iranian nuclear weapon program has been in a negotiation for "another 2 years" 8 times since 1996.
Since Iran's weapon would have been a fait accomplis in 6 months, Obama was then preparing to place his plan in effect.
Libyan Ambassador types are bumps in the road that are as cared about as the US Army in Bataan was carted about in 1942. If they die, then they die/
President Romney will find this all out soon and I hope he makes it public.
@Ken in SC/
LOL, I flew both the C&D models. I have a tape I made AT CLOSE RANGE of two D models running up on the active and the subsequent AB t.o. Once years ago when the neighbors were partying too loudly in the adjoining apt I put the tape on, turned my speakers against the wall and dialed it up max grunt...they "got the message," lol.
Synova said...So from now on safe rooms had better have respirators and fire suppression systems.
Syn, I know from our previous discussion, that you and I both have experience hanging thermite plates on crypto gear. I don't know about your experience beyond that, but in my crypto room, beyond the thermite, fire axes, sledges, and 2 car batteries (for the thermite wiring harness), we had air tanks for 2-3 people (aka, trick chief and head crypto mech, last guys out). It's not practical to have tanks for 50 :)
you'd look like a SCUBA shop...
as for fire supression, didn't want that, we wanted it to burn baby burn...
PS to Ken in SC: As did the rest of the building, lol.
Ah... ours had fire suppression of the "remove all the air from the room and die" variety.
;-)
Most of the time I was just in a data processing shop with nothing particularly more sensitive than Privacy Act and OPSEC level stuff. The amount of "destroy before you leave" material was minimal and we had a five pound sledge for that.
Romney will get elected, he will start a trade war with China, BINGO!
No, no, it's President Obama who's really TOUGH ON CHINA. He's a total protectionst badass and Romney is a weasel who says he's TOUGH ON CHINA, but secretly invested some money there or something.
At least that's what the TV commercials tell me.
"Game, set, match."
Ed's a legend in his own mind. These colossal international fuckups. And by all means, count Libya among them, although thank God at this point it's not been the ground-level tarbaby that the other two fuckups have been. Would love to be totally disengaged militarily, from Libya. Reasonable people would love it, I mean.
Ed, thinking of these colossal international fuckups as "campaigns" or maybe in his more heady moments, "theaters."
It's all very epic when you're ed.
I did some training in areas with greater sensitivity but was never permanently transferred to them so I missed the "how to destroy it all" parts.
The troll said:
"You do not know this, in some part, because you refuse to think about WHY people would ever reach such a skeptical place with regards to Adventurism."
The Oxford Union debated fighting for "king and country." Hitler won. I wonder how many died after believing the propaganda of folks like you ? Eventually, the decision comes and cannot be escaped. All the magical thinking in the world will not delay the decision by a single day.
George Orwell knew people like you. He said "war is unnecessary. There is always surrender."
Yes, Michael K. History tells us that every time we enter a war it is like fighting Hitler.
You dumb shit. Don't you understand that the rhetoric you are trading in can be used to justify any war, anywhere, ever? At least, it can be used to justify any war, anywhere, ever, to other dumb shits.
I also love the reference to "magical thinking." This coming from Michael K., a supporter of people who predicted our soldiers would be so lovingly greeted in these Adventures, roses would be thrown before their very steps. It was all so simple when they were bullshitting about it in the runup to Iraq and Afgahnistan!
And it remains that simple to Michael K., to edutcher. To Althouse herself, likely. Simple Jack, kind of simple.
Since ou are younger, you likely had a lot of mag tape, whereas mine was paper tape.
Thus, I suspect your hammer was used to give 3 whacks to each tape drive. 1 on each spindle and a love tap on the reader head?
PS: while I handled wartime intell headed to DIRNSA, you dealt with the truly sensitive stuff ;)
promotion lists and reassignment orders...
"You dumb shit. Don't you understand that the rhetoric you are trading in can be used to justify any war, anywhere, ever?"
Of course it can.
But you can't see alternate futures, or if you can you should stop holding out on the rest of us.
The only way to know if someone is a "Hitler" is to wait until it's impossible to wait any longer.
Or wait until the genocide is over and normalcy resumes.
Before it became more important to hate Bush, Saddam was generally grouped with the famous genocides of History, if you care about that.
He'd pop up on that list in serious places and pop up on that list in casual popular entertainment... need a list of genocides, or evil dictators for your intrepid female reporter to spout off before she gets herself into trouble with the pretend one in the script? The list includes something like... "I can't get an interview with Saddam and Hitler is dead."
I realize that the memory hole is deep, so very very deep.
"...promotion lists and reassignment orders..."
And pay statements. Exactly right.
And we took it all very seriously too, since several years earlier they'd found local merchants using the discarded printouts from our shop to wrap food.
That Ahmad Abu Khattala sure has community organizing down pat!
Mau-mauing the flak catchers, Libya style.
"harrogate said...
I also love the reference to "magical thinking." This coming from Michael K., a supporter of people who predicted our soldiers would be so lovingly greeted in these Adventures, roses would be thrown before their very steps. It was all so simple when they were bullshitting about it in the runup to Iraq and Afgahnistan!
And it remains that simple to Michael K., to edutcher. To Althouse herself, likely. Simple Jack, kind of simple."
Everybody seems to be against you. I know it is not permitted to examine your own beliefs but maybe you should start your meds again.
I love the obscene ad hominem responses. That's how I know I won the argument.
Iran is a threat. Afghanistan is not. A year or more ago I recommended leaving Afghanistan immediately. I think more than a thousand US troops have been killed since. The ROE are ridiculous and we should leave and leave Pakistan.
Iraq was worth doing but Obama has guaranteed failure.
Dolts like you do not understand that the world is not a friendly place. It's a bit like living in a bad neighborhood. Sissies should move but there is no place else to go for the USA.
"But then, on some level you know the only way your guys can get away from entangling us again is to lie eve better than they did last time. Romney, I confess, is nicely cut out for the lying."
Yes, because we want to engage in a war.
Nut job.
Gee, Synova, subscribing to what you just wrote sounds awfully like a recipe for never being wrong to start a war. Some variation of, 'You Can't Say They Wouldn't Have Been Nazi Germany All Over Again, Because That's An Alternate Future!'
How very convenient for you and especially for the politicos you apparently admire, such as Bush.
These politicos we are discussing, would NEVER abuse the propensity of so many to fall for the logic you are so blithely yammering away with, in trained seal-like fashion.
Michael K. continues to spew:
"Everybody seems to be against you. I know it is not permitted to examine your own beliefs but maybe you should start your meds again."
Good God. So you, edutcher, Althouse, and other righty caterwaulers here now constitue "Everybody"? Sounds like you are the one who needs meds.
But more "interesting" to me is the little "rough neighborhood" speech you write next. I mean dude. Just go back and read what you wrote. It's as though you are hearing spaghetti western soundtrack in the background while you type. You keyboard warrior, you. Telling us "How It IS In This Rough World."
You don't even know that the "let me tell you somethin, son," schtick is just that: preening schtick. You seem, rather, to think you really are that guy. That's sorta sad.
But sadder is the incredible waste of life, that results from the kind of bullshit you are peddling. Here we are so soon after the tragic Iraq clusterfuck, and still so many idiots chattering about how great it was, let's have even more of it.
I expect President Pouty pants to get all indignant tomorrow night at any suggestion the obama whitehouse has "Politicized Libya"
It would be interesting if Bob Scheiffer will be trying to defend the jugged eared jesus on this point. All signs point to "YES!"
How about this? Any more wars, we have to pay a war tax and reinstate the draft. Fair?
Because when Romney starts the trade war with China, they won't borrow us any more money, they'll say, "Oh no mister, no more wars on our dime!"
harrogate said...
Game, set, match.
Ed's a legend in his own mind. These colossal international fuckups. And by all means, count Libya among them, although thank God at this point it's not been the ground-level tarbaby that the other two fuckups have been. Would love to be totally disengaged militarily, from Libya. Reasonable people would love it, I mean.
Ed, thinking of these colossal international fuckups as "campaigns" or maybe in his more heady moments, "theaters."
It's all very epic when you're ed.
And he has yet to answer my question or rebut my original contention.
Which means he has none.
I repeat:
Game, set, match.
Inga said...
How about this? Any more wars, we have to pay a war tax and reinstate the draft. Fair?
More like stupid.
Using Charlie Rangel as the fountainhead of wisdom on anything is not the way to win an argument.
Never being wrong or always being wrong, Harrogate. And the fact remains that no Democrat president in my lifetime has avoided kinetic military actions. Not one. Ever.
I don't know why you think that Romney would obviously be "adventuresome" but I think it's probably an unfounded prejudice on your part. To my thinking he's not any better than previous Democrats when it comes to military understanding and I sincerely hope he gets some excellent advisers. This still puts him no better than Obama, though, and we already know that Obama is fond of simultaneously committing and hamstringing our military.
Look at this: http://icasualties.org/oef/
And tell me what I'm supposed to think of Obama as a leader in Afghanistan. He didn't pull us out, he just promised we'd leave. We've got NO mission there, NO goal. We're just pissing lives away.
I, personally, am not as convinced that we couldn't "win" in Afghanistan if we had a rational goal in mind, but clearly we don't have one. Is our continued involvement in Afghanistan wrong or right? I think that depends every bit as much on what we actually do there as it does on what *is* there. With Obama in charge that war has a different nature because Obama defines the nature, the goals, the rules of engagement, the mission itself. If we don't have a mission then clearly we're just killing people and getting our soldiers killed for nothing.
You can hate Bush all you like but he defined a mission in both Afghanistan and Iraq and avoided spreading our involvement to additional countries barring a minimal amount of drone use in Pakistan and that was mostly during lame duck months followed by Obama's enthusiastic continuance of the program. And then there's Libya, of course, and explain our national interest there because I truly can't imagine what it might have been. Do you really think that Qaddafi was proven to be Hitler in some greater sense than Saddam ever was? Had he invaded his neighbors? Did we have reason to think that he was a WMD threat? Oh, wait, he took one look at Iraq and gave up his WMD programs already, so it wasn't that.
What was it that WE needed to do that France could not, that someone else could not? Make Obama look manly?
Post a Comment