Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#4 Nobody ordered that assistance NOT be given; probably the orders were 'wait on orders', which were not issued in time. (Nat Sec Adv is not chain of command though the 'wait' could have been pending advice.) I suspect all the delay and 'factfinding' is to figure out who they were waiting on and/or who goes under the bus.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-10-28 08:36||
#5 and/or who goes under the bus
To be announced 11/8, or not at all.
Posted by Don Vito Smiter of the Texans2104 2012-10-28 10:01||
#6 A general dismissed and an admiral pulled in for interrogation or whatever. Sounds like they were ordered not to go in and the two almost did anyway, or that they were ordered to go in and the two were gunshy. I imagine the first because I can't see things being so hush-hush if Obama could easily lay blame on the military leaders.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-10-28 10:46||
#7 If true, this is not without precedent Richard.
Many years ago, upon learning of a terrorist attack in process, an Army Colonel commanding a Special Mission Unit, leaned forward in the foxhole and "self-deployed" an element to Germany to set up a Command, Control and Communications package. When his initiative was discovered by the Pentagon, he was ordered to stand-down and severly repremanded by then Secretary John O. Marsh. He was never promoted to General Officer, and the Special Mission Unit suffered debilitating oversight and restrictions for many years thereafter.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-10-28 11:23||
#8 The admiral didn't make it to the scene until mid October, and had entered the Navy 5th Fleet's area of operations in the Middle East on Oct. 17 after sailing across the Pacific. The Stennis made port visits in Thailand and Malaysia on its way to the Middle East.
Posted by Sherry 2012-10-28 11:23||
#9 The admiral was nowhere near the Mediterranean at the time and could not have been involved.
Gen. Ham was on schedule for reassignment and does not seem to have been replaced with prejudice (though I guess it is possible.) That is not to say that some other officer or officers did not try to 'self-deploy', but if so, they clearly did not follow through.
Either fear of failure/paralysis by analysis, or policy and decisions based on legal interpretations rather than military ones.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-10-28 11:31||
#10 They are trying to find some intern in the Sec Def office to blame.
Posted by lord garth 2012-10-28 12:33||
#11 There ARE defendable reasons why rescue was not attempted; what I can't figure out is why they would resort to stupid and provably dishonest ones.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-10-28 13:18||
#12 Oh, that's easy, Glenmore - we are all too dumb to understand the TrueFacts, so they have to give us the GoodFacts.
Posted by Bobby 2012-10-28 13:48||
#13 Oh, that's easy, Glenmore - we are all too dumb to understand the TrueFacts, so they have to give us the GoodFacts