- This topic has 88 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM #20232October 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM #753380
SK in CV
ParticipantThere was a report of real-time video being viewed in the white house. Unconfirmed, it’s a claim made by a retired lt. col., based on what he says he was told. There has been no corroboration, nor has the source, if he does in fact exist, been identified.
Pentagon has denied it. As has the CIA.
The requests for support being denied seems more possible. But before jumping to any conclusions, consider why this might be. The requests for support would not go to the White House. They would go to up the chain of command in the CIA and Africa centcom. That is where they were likely denied.
I think what I’ve read is that the two that did respond were former seals, working for the CIA, responding from an agency safe-house in the vicinity of the consulate.
Support being an hour or hours away (a couple hours is what I’ve read) does not by itself create a feasible plan to deploy. They weren’t in country. If there was a plan that would have a high likelihood of success, without further casualties, it would have gone up the chain of command, and it would have been approved. The Pentagon reported that based on intel at the time, the guy in charge of Africa centcom agreed that no such plan existed. So it wasn’t that they didn’t want to provide support, they couldn’t figure out how to do it and succeed. They had almost no time for planning, no time for training, no time for a walk through. Special ops takes time. There was none.
October 29, 2012 at 8:28 PM #753383SD Realtor
ParticipantSo that is what is peculiar to me. What is clear is that support was requested, at least 3 times.
Two former seals did go assist those who were under attack. They did so against orders to stand down and in doing so ended up saving lives.
What is not clear is who gave the direct orders to not do anything at all. The closest explanation matches what you said and was given by Panetta who said,
“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
General Ham is head of US Africa command. Dempsey is Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet Panetta did not say that specific requests for help were denied. Patraeus also has taken a stance of no requests were denied from him or anyone in his organization.
I understand special ops missions take planning and such. By the same token, I cannot comprehend the strategy of not doing a damn thing. Not a fly by? Not anything?
Ty Woods was one of the guys that went to rescue the operatives. What also does not make sense is that one of the most often quoted creeds of the military is no man is left behind. To have all of the technology and not to do anything, anything at all, simply seems very odd to me. There are 3 bases within 2 hours, Sigonella Italy, (an hour away) as well as Aviano and Suda Bay, both within 2 hours.
So again, what you said about the military chain of command makes sense yet nobody is saying the buck stops here, I am the one that said no.
Here we are 45 days after the event.
What I do believe to be true is that the White House, Panetta and others did have a feed of what was going on and were very abreast of the situation however they did not have any intelligence of it beforehand. Rightfully they were confused yet I cannot believe that they did not present options to the president.
I believe that they presented those options with a proper risk assessment. I believe one of the options was also to prod they Libyans to take action and hope that they would rescue the Americans. This was probably the most palatable decision to the president which is obviously the one he selected. We don’t know if the rescue would have worked, we don’t know if more lives would have been lost, we don’t know how the Libyan govt would have reacted.
However I guess this is what troubles me the most, that when faced with these what ifs the decision made was to stand down. Now instead of facing the music we are getting a stall tactic until after the election which I guess is understandable. However by nature Obama is not a risk taker. I think that there is a tangible point to be made and that is, an unsuccessful rescue attempt in Benghazi would have been quite damaging given the upcoming election.
October 29, 2012 at 8:38 PM #753384Hobie
ParticipantThe most damning evidence in the Seal that laser painted the mortar position thus giving away his position and subsequently killed.
Was he bluffing the enemy to think they were being targeted to cease fire and retreat? Or was he in communication with an air asset coordinating a counterstrike?
Real time video from the air and the laser spot sure suggests the latter. Allen details??
October 29, 2012 at 8:40 PM #753385blake
ParticipantIt’s amazing how little press coverage on this.
October 29, 2012 at 8:57 PM #753387Participant[quote=SD Realtor]So that is what is peculiar to me. What is clear is that support was requested, at least 3 times.
Two former seals did go assist those who were under attack. They did so against orders to stand down and in doing so ended up saving lives.
What is not clear is who gave the direct orders to not do anything at all. The closest explanation matches what you said and was given by Panetta who said,
“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
General Ham is head of US Africa command. Dempsey is Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet Panetta did not say that specific requests for help were denied. Patraeus also has taken a stance of no requests were denied from him or anyone in his organization.
I understand special ops missions take planning and such. By the same token, I cannot comprehend the strategy of not doing a damn thing. Not a fly by? Not anything?
Ty Woods was one of the guys that went to rescue the operatives. What also does not make sense is that one of the most often quoted creeds of the military is no man is left behind. To have all of the technology and not to do anything, anything at all, simply seems very odd to me. There are 3 bases within 2 hours, Sigonella Italy, (an hour away) as well as Aviano and Suda Bay, both within 2 hours.
So again, what you said about the military chain of command makes sense yet nobody is saying the buck stops here, I am the one that said no.
Here we are 45 days after the event.
What I do believe to be true is that the White House, Panetta and others did have a feed of what was going on and were very abreast of the situation however they did not have any intelligence of it beforehand. Rightfully they were confused yet I cannot believe that they did not present options to the president.
I believe that they presented those options with a proper risk assessment. I believe one of the options was also to prod they Libyans to take action and hope that they would rescue the Americans. This was probably the most palatable decision to the president which is obviously the one he selected. We don’t know if the rescue would have worked, we don’t know if more lives would have been lost, we don’t know how the Libyan govt would have reacted.
However I guess this is what troubles me the most, that when faced with these what ifs the decision made was to stand down. Now instead of facing the music we are getting a stall tactic until after the election which I guess is understandable. However by nature Obama is not a risk taker. I think that there is a tangible point to be made and that is, an unsuccessful rescue attempt in Benghazi would have been quite damaging given the upcoming election.[/quote]
I would suggest you ignore the political.
What is the logical conclusion if you do that?
The military wants to do this shit. It’s what they live for. This kind of situation is like handing a scalpel to a surgeon and telling him not to cut. The only reason they wouldn’t is that they had no path to success. How many troops? What kind? What skills? How do we get them in country? Once they’re in country, how do they get to the site?
I don’t have training in this kind of shit. But i can’t imagine planning it is simple. And if there was any way for them to succeed, I have no doubt they would have done it.
I don’t think it has anything to do with politics. Politics just makes no sense.
October 29, 2012 at 8:57 PM #753386ParticipantActually the lack of media coverage is very consistent.
Ask yourself, and be very honest here, if this happens on Bush’s watch is the media behavior the same?
Hobie there has been no report of any air assets sent from any of the bases. Nobody in the military has declared that any air assets were enabled. Nobody in the CIA has, nobody from the state department or from the administration has. It makes things even more frustrating that they had the attackers painted and still nothing was done.
What also is sadly ironic is that the two ex seals defied orders to stand down to save lives. How many more people would have died if they would have followed orders from higher ups?
October 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM #753390ParticipantI guess we differ in that respect.
In no way do I believe that our military does not plan for situations like this. That the military does not have precise plans for what type of troops, what skills needed, and how they get to and from the targets.
In fact it is 100% inconceivable to me that the military does not have preparations for this sort of stuff. I have two different clients who are ex seals, and they have told me that yes there is in fact a very high level of training for rescue situations like this.
Please don’t confuse my convictions of preparedness with ignorance of the risk. So you said, if there was any way for them to succeed then you have no doubt they would have done it. I believe this is entirely false. I believe that there were options presented and success was a possible outcome given a high level of risk. There is never a situation where success is 100% gauranteed. I think there are always degrees of risk and that the decision made was that there was to much to lose both in human lives, military ops and political capital, to try to save these lives.
October 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM #753391Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Actually the lack of media coverage is very consistent.
Ask yourself, and be very honest here, if this happens on Bush’s watch is the media behavior the same?
[/quote]
Bush was a different time. He had the NY Times behind him for the first half of his presidency. If this had been Bush, we would have waited a few months and attacked someone who had nothing to do with it. And most of the press would have supported him.
October 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM #753392La Jolla Renter
ParticipantThe administration sure paraded, what should of been classified, information on the Bin Ladin mission.
Will it be much of a surprise that the Libya mess becomes “very classified”.
Can’t believe we couldn’t take out the mortar threat by one of a half a dozen methods. What a great statement that would have made to terrorists.
October 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM #753394ParticipantAfter the 9/11 attacks Bush had unmitigated support. However BEFORE the 9/11 attacks in no way whatsoever did Bush have the press behind him. The honeymoon period ended about 2 years after the attacks.
The question is what would have the press done, not what would Bush had done. If this happens in 2006, 7 or 8 then in no way does the press treat Bush like they are treating Obama now. With the exception of Fox, the press has supported Obama without question or investigation. This presists.
October 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM #753395enron_by_the_sea
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Ask yourself, and be very honest here, if this happens on Bush’s watch is the media behavior the same?[/quote]
Let’s see what happened when Bush was in the white house.
1) 9/11 happened, media did not ask any questions about how Bush could have missed this for many years. Fox news & GOP does not ask that question even today.
2) Bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora and Bush decided not to pursue him. No one questioned that wisdom for years to come. Fox News and GOP do not bring that up even today.
3) Iraq WMD intel was cooked up by Cheney,Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and gang. Any media that dared to question them were labelled anti-american (usually by Fox News).
So when the same people come on Fox News and now rant against Obama on Libya, is not natural for me to be skeptical? Seems to me like, it is not very credible to accuse someone when one themselves have been involved in similar shady businesses in the past …
If Obama’s foreign policy has failed, Mitt’s solution is GWB’s foreign policy – which was even a bigger disaster!
October 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM #753397ParticipantFair points made and points well taken enron.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Point 2 however makes no sense and in retrospect is more then likely not true at all. Bin Laden was not only not in Tora Bora, but we probably had no clue where he was.
Also how do you conclude Mitts foreign policy to match GWBs?
October 29, 2012 at 9:49 PM #753398ParticipantOctober 29, 2012 at 10:03 PM #753403Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Also how do you conclude Mitts foreign policy to match GWBs?[/quote]17 of Romney’s 24 foreign policy advisors served in the Bush Administration.
And Russia too. Also.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.