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.
#1 If evidence shows Panetta, Dempsey, et al recommended no action can their impeachment be far behind? Their best bet may be Barry's defeat and the fiscal cliff.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-10-30 04:49||
#2 "(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," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "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."
But they did "know what was going on". Knowing "what is going on", maintaining tactical and strategic situational awareness is part and parcel of their jobs. Not knowing is an admission of incompetence, of failure!
It was unmistakenly, a US Embassy take-down. They had more than "real-time information", he had live video INTELLIGENCE feeds amd reporting! Forces have been..."at risk" in Afghanistan and Iraq for decades. It's what soldiers, airmen, and Marines do. The "risk" he was concerned about was not to "forces" but to a man.
At a minimum, Penetta and the generals sensed a reluctant, dithering POTUS and simply provided him the recommendation he needed. The bulk of the mission, reportedly some 30 personnel (the exact figure has still not been released), had been successfully extracted. This would have been celebrated in the situation room. The plan may have been for everyone to EXFIL (exfiltrate) Benghazi on the OGA bird, but the two former SEALS decided to return to search for their boss the Ambassador. This proved their undoing.
The question of why Ambassador Stevens would have traveled to Benghazi on such a potentially dangerous date (9/11) remains unanswered. You may notice that the ribbon cutting ceremony reason for his travel, is no longer mentioned by the press or government officials.
Although the truth has been obstructed by bad weather and a shocking (black and white video) Joseph Stalin era campaign song sung by zombie children, this story is far from over. A far greater storm awaits this administration.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-10-30 05:45||
#3 "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on Weasel wording.
Contrast that with mottos of the Navy Seals:
Contrast that with mottos of the Navy Seals: "Don't bother running, you will only die tired."
"Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit"
Posted by JohnQC 2012-10-30 07:48||
#4 What I find interesting is the theory that they were denied the right to go into Libya by the Libyan government, which is the only thing that makes sense... but the fact that Libya hasn't been thrown under the bus by now confounds me.
I didn't believe the gunwalking theory initially but it's starting to look better and better when no other plausible explanation is forthcoming.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-10-30 08:50||
#5 My ignorance in anything about intelligence/combat, etc. is nada, none, zilch I admit.
without having some real-time information about what's taking place
But, if you've got live video feeds while under attach, you got eyes above watching, you got top of the line communications which that CIA station probably has, ("Our eyes got poked out," I recall reading to quote a CIA guy), people whose job it is to put that altogether and you got a SEAL on the ground directing traffic, what more do you need?
In a radio interview with a former CIF operator, he said they had been sent in when sometimes all they had was a piece of paper with coordinates on it -- he said they would then go in, not knowing about the terrain of the location, what kind of building/s, even to not knowing how many people would be involved.
But then, I'm not the Sec Defense.
Posted by Sherry 2012-10-30 13:13||
#6 The bottom line is ... we got hit by a surprise attack, the enemy pinpointed a weak area, they overwhelmed our OODA loop, and we lost the battle.
In spite of all of our technology - we are still vulnerable.
Posted by Raider 2012-10-30 14:34||
#7 I've heard a bunch of places that the seals on site had painted the mortor that killed them with infrared targetting. Anyone know how we know that? It would seem that the only ones that would know are (a) dead (b) enemies (c) in an aircraft and probably forbidden to speak.
If that fact is true someone was watching and talking.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-10-30 14:42||
#8 With Obama in the Loop it seems to call
If POTUS.BedTime(Obama) Then
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-10-30 14:42||
Posted by Flusosh Hupirong6665 2012-10-30 15:24||
A surprise to who? Maybe to the Prez who did't attend his daily intelligence briefings prior to the attack. But it surely was not a surprise to Ambassador Stevens who "repeatedly sounded alarms to his superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died."
#12 A small correction mossomo... they were not left for dead. They were left to DIE.
Posted by Shipman 2012-10-30 18:02||
#13 It would've been much more better for the Admin to have sent in a rescue team that wasn't needed than to allow the mission to be violently or militarily besieged for nine hours wid US rescue assets only 30 minutes -one hour away.
Lest we fergit, the factionalism widin the post-Ghaddafi transitional govt. is such that Libyan Politicos were calling on the Bammer Admin = USA to assert more effective leadership or influence ala ending the intra-TRNC impasses. NOTHING SAYS "THE US/OBAMA IS HERE" THAN LIBYAN FACTIONS SEEING ARMED COBRAS, APACHES,OR "SPECTRES" FLYING OER THEIR HEADS, + HEAVILY ARMED US MARINES ANDOR SPECOPS ON THE GROUND.
We have not heard much on the MSM-Net or the WH about the Libyan rescue force that allegedly ran into ambush on the way.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-10-30 21:12||