Why was there no Benghazi rescue attempt?
I’ve been thinking that the very simplest explanation is that unless the administration was assured of success they weren’t going to try, because the last thing they wanted was a failed mission. And just when I was thinking of writing a post to say that, I found that commenter “JJ” had written much the same thing:
That is the thinking on the progressive side. You cannot risk a failed military operation that will make your decision making look bad. Bad for the legacy, and all that. It’s my opinion that Obama’s instructions to Panetta that evening were: “Do what you can, but take no risks of a failed operation.” Thus, Panetta and Dempsey (Head of the Joint Chiefs) were extremely conservative and took no risks…
Precisely. But I would add one thing: the historical precedent in mind was almost certainly that of Jimmy Carter, whose Operation Eagle Claw of April 1980 not only failed abysmally to rescue the Iranian hostages, and led to the death of eight American servicemen, but was a humiliation for America and Carter and almost certainly helped Reagan beat him in the ensuing 1980 election.
Benghazi took place seven weeks before the 2012 election. Obama decided to play it safe in the political sense, and it worked, didn’t it? He was re-elected.
[NOTE: For a previous post of mine about Operation Eagle Claw, please see this.]
To paraphrase the computer in War Games:
“A strange game. The only winning move is
not to play. How about a nice game of chess?”
The paraphrase in the minds of the sooper genius’ nightthoughts might be, “My winning move is not to fail.”
So instead of being the hero in attempting a rescue, Obama would rather be a wimp by not failing. I would have respected an attempt, I despise the wimp. Looking at an election instead of the lives on the ground is a much worse moral failure.
Just a word on Carter’s ill-fated Iranian attempt. We lose sight of the fact that this was a complex, audacious mission . We will never know whether it could have succeeded because it ran into very bad luck with the sand storm. The final tragedy was the crash of the helicopter at the refueling site. There was a lot reported about how the whole thing was cobbled together because we did not have dedicated forces, prepared for this sort of mission; and, perhaps the criticism is valid. Still, we should acknowledge that it was a bold effort. Carter ordered it, and very brave men tried to carry out the mission. (I am not comfortable appearing as a Carter apologist, but must acknowledge reality.)
Now, over thirty years later, the whole scenario around Benghazi is rather bizarre. Supposedly the FEST team, which is a specially designed fast reaction force designated to respond when one of our diplomatic posts is threatened, was based in Rota, Spain. That is about as far from the potential trouble spots across Africa and into the Middle East as it could be, and still be considered to be forward deployed. Why? Why was it not at our base in Sigonella, Italy? This would have put it near to Benghazi, which had known threats, and and as near to centrally located as possible to cover the entire region.
Given that transit time was a factor, why wasn’t the FEST preemptively launched at the first indication that the Consulate was in danger? It could have been recalled at any point, if it turned out not to be needed. Instead, no action was taken, and then the delay used to justify not launching. Were we waiting for clearance from the Libyans? If so, why do we have a FEST or any other such team, since any mission will likely take place on the soil of unstable, or even hostile, regimes?
How could we have as Sec of Defense someone who imitates the Village Idiot by asserting, as Leon Panetta did, that we do not deploy rescue forces until we have complete information about the situation? Gee Leon, it is a given that the situation is going to be fraught with danger. That is why you send an armed force. Too bad he was not familiar with some of the heroic rescues that enrich the history of our military forces.
It seems to me that the State Department, among others, was simply not seriously organized for timely decision making and action. Of course, the National Command Authority; i.e., the President, was asleep.
Indeed.
I want the Supreme Village Idiot and his team of equally clueless, inept idiots out of office before my son is ever deployed anywhere.
Having posted the above, I realize that I got off track. I assumed that there might have been an intent to conduct a rescue.
JJ’s analysis is no doubt more on target. There was never a real intent. It is all about finding excuses for not making the effort.
The reason now being given for the absence of a rescue effort — basically, “we couldn’t get there in time” — cannot be the true reason and must have been made up in hindsight. Nobody knew how long the attack would last until it was over. Thus, nobody could have concluded that rescuers couldn’t get there in time while the attack was still going on. The only way to find out whether there was enough time to intervene in the attack was to try.
If nothing else, a belated rescue effort could at least have secured the site. Remember, that didn’t happen for weeks after the attack. While we were being told that the compound still wasn’t safe enough for the military or the FBI to enter, journalists were wandering in and out at will, taking pictures of the bloody handprints on the walls and finding documents like the Ambassador’s diary lying around in the wreckage.
Mrs Whatsit: but the odd thing is, if my theory as stated above is true, “we couldn’t get there in time” is about as close to the truth as Obama is going to get. In fact, what they really were thinking is most likely, “we’re afraid we won’t get there in time.”
Oldflyer: if you read my post on the subject (the one I linked to in the “NOTE”), you’ll see that one of the main problems with the mission in Iran was one that never ended up coming to pass because the mission never got that far. But even if it had been “successful” in the sense of getting near the hostages, I think it would probably have been disastrous because the plan for that portion of the mission was fatally flawed:
Teh One’s presidency is more in the nature of RMN’s than that of JC, lite of the Earth. Yeah, the Watergate comparisons, and all that. But you can’t help but believe that once they start scratching beneath the surface they’ll find all manner of corruption carrying over from the first term. Like Nixon in 72-73. Just think of all the things we already know about (Fast and Furious, eg), let alone others we don’t.
Oldflyer …
The generally untold story about Carter’s project turns on Vance’s objections — he quit over the attempt — and months of WH delays.
IT WAS THE DELAY that took the project into the ‘dusty season’ which would cause all of the lethal troubles — ALL of which were predicted by the experts.
CARTER had delayed beyond the season of success. Vance’s objections were his crutch.
There was a real reason why the Iranians didn’t have their radars oriented towards the desert: it’s a dead zone for aircraft.
Too many focus on the actual rescue attempt — and how close it was — not knowing that its timetable had already been totally trashed by Carter — giving the okay three weeks after the last (predictably) viable moment.
So it really IS true: Buraq is the re-incarnation of Carter.
Indecision 2008, indeed.
Helicopter operations are always extremely risky.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayaguez_incident
about the 1975 Mayaguez incident. The Iran Hostage rescue attempt is a sad example. 1993’s Mogadishu battle is another. And even the successful Bin Laden Operation, which resulted in no dead Americans (thank God), resulted in the crash and destruction of one of the helicopters involved.
This is probably the best explanation I’ve heard and it’s consistent with his ego. In all his life he has never admitted to a mistake, or believed he was anything other than a superior being.
There is no way he would risk a failure without adequate time to concoct a plausilble lie in order to blame somebody else – if things went wrong.
A total scumbag who deserves to be exposed for the incredible fraud that he is.
Look for the US to have a sudden and immediate need to start bombing missions in Syria if any of these scandals start getting too close to him. This is a guy whose only interest is himself, and he will do anything to anyone to protect his ego.
Whatever hope Carter’s Iranian rescue project had turned on the weather in Iran.
Specifically, it needed to go off IN THE COLD.
Like ants, terrorists are slothful in the cold. They don’t have military discipline, nor such uniforms.
The ONLY viable gambit was to fly in during cold weather — when Tehran is bundled up — and aircraft (choppers) develop the most lift.
By April, not only was Iran warming up — it had gotten so warm that the dust season in the Iranian desert had arrived.
Everything needed to happen back in February.
All of the technical glitches so well recounted entirely turn on the fact that the entire mission didn’t get WH approval until too late. Until it came, the DoD didn’t even have the funding to shuttle assets around.
(There’s a separate fund for presidential military emergency priorities. Generals and admirals are NOT permitted to tap such accounts to fund operations on their own account — they’re restricted to customary activities.)
In the case at hand, trick equipment had to be hauled left and right — at the last moment — and at great expense — and across theater commands. That last matter needs emphasis: to stop a “Seven Days in May” scenario — commanding generals are NOT permitted to move assets outside their own command without orders from the National Command Authority. (In normal action the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the President.)
==========
Popular histories ruin perceptions by omitting the astounding lag time between presidential directives and (successful) military operations.
Operation Torch (North Africa, 1942) was okayed m o n t h s before the November landings. Even then the Navy and War Departments were scrambling.
Operation Uranus (Stalingrad, 1942) was okayed m o n t h s before the November counter-stroke.
Carter operated as if he were manning a skiff.
Buraq has a LOT of Carter in him — the micro control: hence his Czar network.
Of which, you just KNOW there are a sea of scandals.
JJ’s take is plausible but I can’t agree that the primary concern was “fear of failure” because of the following:
“CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle…
The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour’s flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it.”
“To reiterate from the report, one choice was only an hour away: send one, two, or even three of the available AC 130 Spectre gunships overhead to lay down a murderous suppressive fire around the Benghazi consulate. Apparently these gunships are frightening things to behold and terrifying to face. According to several people who have firsthand experience with these aircraft, these planes are flying gun platforms bristling with multiple 20mm Gatling guns and rapid-fire recoilless 40mm and 105mm artillery.
Sending a gunship over the consulate might even have ended this engagement immediately by convincing the attackers to head home. If two were cycled, then nearly continual coverage would have been possible until a contingent of U.S. forces arrived to deal with what remained.”
Panetta’s claim that there wasn’t enough intel is hogwash. The meme that we couldn’t get there in time is hogwash.
Fighter jets could have easily been over Benghazi before Stevens was captured and killed. Followed by the gunships and then spec ops people. Dempsey and his advisers had to know this within minutes of the beginning of the attack. Thus Panetta knew of it shortly after Dempsey. Had Obama any concern whatsoever, he would have remained because only he had the “cross-border authority” needed to enter Libyan airspace.
It’s not fear of failure that prevented military assistance, it was the mortal political threat that an al Qaeda attack in Libya against an American Ambassador on 9/11 posed to Obama’s reelection.
Neo: “Carter wanted to avoid killing Iranians, so he had insisted that if a hostile crowd formed during the raid, Delta should attempt to control it without shooting people.”
Under the witch hunt post, in response to Ann’s quote of Pirro, I said a “take care of it” instruction from the CinC to the JCS and SecDef isn’t damning and on its face would qualify as meeting the minimum standard in his echelon. However, I also said that assumes there was no ulterior instruction limiting the response.
Carter’s instruction limiting the RoE for the hostage rescue team in Iran is the kind of ‘ulterior instruction’ I had in mind.
If Obama did issue an instruction like “take care of it” but then coupled that instruction with additional guidance like Carter’s that restricted the RoE (eg, Libyan casualties due to US fire are not allowed), then that could very well raise the risk and reduce the likelihood of success, thus inducing his subordinate commanders to hold back.
Any restriction that was placed on the response to the Benghazi should be highlighted.
Geoffrey Britain: the two are not mutually exclusive.
I believe both motivations were operating. However, the one you state—fear that this sort of attack would muss up the preferred narrative of victory over al Qaeda, etc—has been quite well-aired. The theory I’m highlighting here, which I believe was also operating, hasn’t been discussed so much re Obama and Benghazi.
Geoffrey: “it was the mortal political threat that an al Qaeda attack in Libya against an American Ambassador on 9/11”
I would fine-tune Obama’s fear this way:
Remember, Obama’s Libya policy was explicitly represented as the superior alternative to Bush’s Iraq policy. Libya was cast as Obama’s model for smarter intervention in the ME that made him better than Bush. Obama’s Libya policy is designed around a ‘no boots on the ground’, ‘lead from behind’, ‘smart’ footprint in deliberate contrast to our heavy-handed peace operations in Iraq.
So, what’s the major optical political red line separating Obama’s Libya policy from Bush’s Iraq policy?
The optic of US ground forces engaging with Libyan locals, potentially resulting in sustained and delivered casualties.
Images of US forces in a ground fight with Libyans would have been broadcast world-wide and inflamed as propaganda. Obama would have been thrust in Bush’s shoes.
I don’t believe Obama feared the appearance of a terrorist attack on 9/11 on a diplomatic compound as much as he feared the optic of US ground forces fighting Libyan ‘insurgents’, thus giving lie to the core premise of his Libya policy.
Obama could not accept the appearance that his purposely anti-Iraq Libya model was wrong and Bush was right.
Again, I advocate that the right pushes a Bush v Obama frame that criticizes Obama in contrast while rehabilitating Bush’s legacy.
I do see your point, Neo, but I also have difficulty grasping the logic by which they thought people would perceive getting there as fast as possible but too late (and thus, presumably, not having aircraft crashes or ground fights with insurgents who are gone by then) as a bigger failure than not even trying. I’m inclined to think that fear of success is the more likely, and far more depressing, explanation.
Not to be forgotten is that the Commander in Chief was sound asleep throughout it all, snoring peacefully away while the Ambassador that Obama so chummily referred to the next morning as “Chris” fought for his life and then died for his country. Maybe the simplest explanation is the total vaccuum in the spot where leadership is supposed to be.
Add: Augmenting fear of US ground forces in Libya – Blackhawk Down.
Recall that our Somalia mission was also a deliberately limited ‘light footprint’ operation. The Blackhawk Down incident started as a simple arrest that then compounded into a city-wide ambush and running battle.
Might not have a Benghazi rescue turned into the same kind of larger incident? After all, if Benghazi was a known hot bed of terrorist activity and the attack was coordinated, then commanders had to consider that it was an ambush – either planned or effectively the same.
What if US forces placed on the ground triggered a much larger coordinated attack, like Blackhawk Down? What if aircraft were shot down?
Again, I think Obama’s fear was less a terrorist attack in and of itself but rather the optic of US ground forces battling in Libya, especially with the potential of the battle escalating into a Blackhawk Down scenario.
In that scenario, the rescue was held off because Obama refused to take the bait, the bait being the lives of Ambassador Stevens and his dead compatriots.
I still say that Obama et al (Hillary) had something afoot in BenghazI specifically, the substance of which we aren’t being told. And what they’re covering up is tied up in that, as well as the reason why they didn’t send in troops and/or a rescue team.
Mrs Whatsit: “Not to be forgotten is that the Commander in Chief was sound asleep throughout it all, snoring peacefully away”
I would tread lightly on this point, given that Obama apparently gave instructions to the SecDef and JCS before retiring for the night.
The President of the United States needs to sleep, too.
The idea that Obama should have been awake the whole night, perhaps watching satellite video of the attack while biting his nails, implies that the CinC ought to micromanage every hostile engagement involving US personnel overseas, 24/7.
That’s an unreasonable expectation of the CinC for a firefight in Afghanistan between Army Rangers and Taliban fighters and I don’t hold the CinC to that standard for the Benghazi attack.
Rather, I’m more interested in the substantive input from Obama’s command. What was Obama’s cost/benefit analysis and how did his subordinates interpret their commander’s intent? What were the protocols and were they changed under Obama? What was the decision-making impact down the line of his over-all Libya policy? What were his real-time instructions and restrictions?
If Obama went to sleep while neglecting to give the necessary permissions and instructions to his subordinate commanders, that would be one thing. Otherwise, that particular aspect is not a big deal.
G Joubert,
If we were running a clandestine op in Benghazi, which would be the CIA’s domain, how would that be related to rescuing or not rescuing Stevens and his staff? As long as the rescue didn’t require the clandestine operatives to break cover, I don’t understand how abandoning Stevens et al would preserve the operational security of a black op.
One would think rescuing Stevens and whatever classified information he had on his person would preserve opsec better than giving him and his information up to the attackers.
Eric, I disagree. This was not just some run-of-the-mill hostile engagement somewhere overseas. This was an attack on an American consulate — that is, American soil — on the anniversary of September 11, in which an ambassador was threatened and — as I understand it — missing at the time Obama was told about it. Further, it occurred in a country where Obama had just finished dismantling the pre-existing regime by “leading from behind.” He could not possibly have been blind to the seriousness of what was occurring, even if all he saw was the political jeopardy to his re-election.
Yes, Presidents need sleep. So do firefighters, doctors, nurses, young parents and many other people who regularly give up sleep in order to meet their job responsibilities. In this case, the justification for resting up — a campaign fundraiser the next day — was hardly such a compelling national need that he couldn’t have found some time for a nap the next day in exchange for an hour or two sometime during the night of paying attention to his job. As I understand it he was told about the attack fairly early in the evening, told others to fix it, walked away and never followed up thereafter with so much as a pre-bedtime “How’s it going?” call. I’m sorry, but I expect more than that from my President, and I suspect the Ambassador did, too.
Moreover, I think he absents himself at times like that not just because he’s lazy or aloof but intentionally, because that way it’s harder to blame him when things go wrong. Good old plausible deniability.
Weren’t the Seals on the roof painting targets with lasers? Wasn’t it risky for them to do this? Weren’t they killed on the roof? Why did Obama not send attack aircraft to take out the terrorists with precision laser-guided munitions? It may be true that other groups who wanted to respond were told to stand down, but why not do an air strike? There must be a reason that Obama chose not to respond in any way. My guess is that Obama and Hillary are loathe to give the real reason because it will reveal them to be even more corrupt and incompetent than they already look.
Eric:
I would wait up when my son was late coming home from a concert. And I need my sleep, too.
I can see no excuses for Obama’s behavior. This was a bona fide crisis, not business as usual. He should have been up monitoring. What’s more, even when he was apparently awake, he doesn’t seem to have been doing much or talking to many people.
Obama was informed of the attack late in the afternoon that day, and yet, according to a letter to Congress which the White House subsequently released:
In fact, he apparently made no phone calls at all that evening. And remember, he was told of the attack in the late afternoon of Sept 11.
“In fact, he made no phone calls at all that evening. and remember, he was told of the attack in the late afternoon of Sept 11”
Another first: The Sargeant Schultz Presidency.
Eric,
We don’t know what we don’t know. Anything at this point is just speculation. But ask yourself, hypothetically, who armed the insurgents? Is this administration capable of that? Of trying to influence which faction prevailed? Did they, and were they turned upon? If so, could they fess up to such a thing, or would they instead try to cover it up? Just a hypothetical. But I’m thinking something like that.
I think Peggy Noonan’s conjecture says it best: there had to be a nonstory — that is, no terrorism because Obama had made that go away — and a nonstory requires a nonresponse.
In other words, cold calculation all the way down.
I agree with Ann. I think there was no strategic analysis of cost/benefit or risks to a mission. It never took place because the political need trumped all of that.
I need someone to break down the timeline, but at the time they gave the first “stand down” order, they thought that at least 30 lives were at stake- at risk to either be hostages or killed entirely. How was that an acceptable risk to take? So they stopped a team of 4 who were trained for just such a situation? And by the way, it was not really a rescue mission. When we say that we envision flying in and having people tied onto ropes from a helicopter and taking off amidst gunfire/rocket launches. All they needed to do was 1) fly by and most of those thugs would have run off (because they wouldn’t know how many were on the chopper) and 2) create a distraction long enough for Woods and Doherty to get out along with any remaining civilians. Because apparently there was a way for everyone to get out, but Woods and Doherty held out to give the others a chance to escape first and protect the retreat. That’s all this team would have had to have done and it’s something that these sorts of special forces teams excel at. A large amount if firepower in a short time to create a distraction before slipping away is precisely what they would have done and it likely would have saved two men’s lives, if not 3. Stevens was long dead of course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/the-deeper-blame-for-benghazi.html
In the NY Times op-ed, a former US diplomat to Libya takes the tack that I do with the Benghazi issue: The Benghazi attack is a symptom and indictment of Obama’s over-all Libya and ME policy.
As I do, Chorin contrasts our post-Saddam mission in Iraq with our post-Qaddafi role in Libya. He doesn’t hammer that point, though. I would emphasize the Obama v Bush frame.
As Chorin suggests, here is the opportunity for America to critique Obama’s whole foreign policy, if we can see the forest and not just focus on the trees.
G Joubert,
I would be surprised if we weren’t running clandestine ops in Libya. I just can’t think of why they would preclude a rescue attempt.
Mrs Whatsit, Neo,
I understand it doesn’t look good, but I have yet to see an explanation for how going to sleep and his passive follow-up made a practical difference in the real-time response.
Sure, it’s worth mentioning because it plugs into the larger narrative of a disconnected executive (eg, Obama’s lack of interest bungled the Iraq SOFA negotiation), but there are greater substantive issues to explore in this controversy.
The military should have been able to respond with the CinC asleep. Why didn’t they? Whether the abandonment was caused by adhering to Obama’s Libya policy, restrictive guidance, or other reasons, there are bigger issues here than whether Obama went to sleep after issuing his instructions.
Neo:
No attempt to save them, no attempt to retrieve the bodies, no attempt to punish the killers! This is not done, ever.
holmes — I think you are saying the same thing as Neo in a roundabout way. Maybe risk of failure isn’t the right term, but the gist of the idea is he didn’t have time to analyze the situation in terms of it’s political impact, and rather than risk a political faceplant, they didn’t do anything.
Since it seems to be known he didn’t make any phone calls out and disengaged early, it stretches the imagination a little to think that he actually went through many scenarios himself in enough detail to draw any conclusions – other than decide he’d delegate it to somebody else and let them deal with it — that would be his safest and most instintive play — doing nothing insured he wouldn’t make any mistakes and couldn’t be tied to either a blunder or collateral damage by sending in drones. Doing himself no harm and blame whatever happened on somebody else or something else — such as a video.
I’m betting the order to stand down came from Panetta and/or Clinton who didn’t want to take the responsibility either. The one thing all of the characters in this sad affair have demonstrated with great skill is monumental irresponsibility.
Eric said…
Whether the abandonment was caused by adhering to Obama’s Libya policy, restrictive guidance, or other reasons, there are bigger issues here than whether Obama went to sleep after issuing his instructions.
Of course, there are bigger issues involved. But, as Don Carlos said on another thread yesterday, “[t]hese stories [like his going to sleep in the midst of the horror] will trickle through people’s consciousness and consciences.”
And that should change their view of Obama. And then perhaps they’ll be ready to look more deeply into what happened in Benghazi, and why.
Or it could be much more simple than anything already mentioned.
Dead men tell no tales.
The ambassador was a personal friend of Ms. Clinton.
The administration has a huge bus, and never, ever hesitates to use it, do they?
I agree with Eric that we don’t know whether effective leadership and decision-making from a Commander in Chief who actually cared about doing his job would have made a difference. What’s more, no such leadership was likely to come from this particular CinC whether he was asleep or awake as events unfolded. And of course I also agree that the bigger issues matter more.
But it burns me up beyond words that the man revealed so fully how little actual responsibility he feels toward the people that our country puts in harm’s way by slumbering through the attack and then tried, the next morning, to create the illusion that he did care by calling the ambassador “Chris.” Talk about politicizing the deaths. If the people who died in Benghazi ever deserved the dignity of their full names and titles, it was when the President told the country about their deaths. I hope to goodness that Ann is right that this will trickle through to some of the people who have somehow managed to get this far without recognizing just what Obama is — but I’m very much afraid that it won’t.
Eric,
What if the administration actually threw in with and supported AQ orAQ-types, who in the end turned on them? You seriously think Obama would be bragging about that? Or would he be motivated to downplay it (I.e., cover it up)?
I am going to have to be convinced that, whatever happened in Benghazi, it did not happen because Obama, Stevens, and Hillary were helpless little waif victims on the sidelines. Occams razor says they were knee-deep in skullduggary. As I asked in another thread, what was so special about Benghazi that Hillary insisted Stevens go there? Something was afoot.
My thinking vis a vis Panetta and Dempsey’s actions goes as follows:
Obama told them to do whatever they could but not at the risk of a Mogadishu or the possibility of killing some Libyan civilians. In other words, don’t do anything that will make things worse for me politically.
If I had been in their shoes, I would have ordered General Ham, Commander of AFRICOM, to do the job, but with restrictions as previously noted. General Ham may have wanted to send a C-130 or some fighter jets from Aviano or Sigonella, but both options had some risks;
!. Too much collateral damage. Maybe even killing some of our personnel.
2. The possibility of aircraft being shot down. It was known that al Qaeda operatives had possesion of some surface to air missiles they had stolen from Gadaffi’s armories. Having an aircraft shot down by a rag tag terror group would not look good.
3. If the fighters at Aviano needed to tank in order to return to base and there were no tankers available, he could have sent them with the idea of returning to Sigonella. But such an operation always carries risks of someone running out of fuel – another possible disaster.
Why the Special Ops people were twice given stand down orders does not make sense to me. Unless they did not want the scenario of our boots on the ground engaging in a pitched battle with Libyan terrorists. That was a totally different scenario than Obama was pushing ala his Libya policy.
It’s all Monday Morning quaterbacking, but when I look at what happened, I just cannot understand why more wasn’t done by the military. That’s why I hope the House will call General Ham for questioning. He’s likely to be able to explain why more wasn’t done better than anyone. He’s also retired now, so he doesn’t have to worry about demotions or other types of pressure. (Although I wouldn’t put anything past Obama & Co.)
If the true story ever comes out, I doubt it will cast a favorable light on Obama, Panetta, Dempsey, Hillary, and maybe Ham. I could be wrong, though. Either way, I really would like to know the truth.
I’m not against making it a part of the story because it does look bad and supports an unflattering view of his over-all leadership, but if that aspect becomes the captivating focus and takes over the narrative on Benghazi, and pushes aside the greater substantive issues, you’re doing Obama a favor and letting him off easy.
As Chorin suggests, here is an opportunity to challenge Obama’s foreign policy down to it fundamental precepts.
By the same token, it’s an opportunity to rehabilitate Bush’s legacy by contrast/comparison with Obama, and thereby for the GOP to seize the political high ground from the Dems.
JJ,
Yep, that’s about what I’m thinking.
Rescuing diplomats is a rare occurrence, but it’s not a new responsibility for the military. There are, I assume, long-standing protocols in place to at least initiate a rescue mission. Since 9/11, our military has become experienced handling more dangerous scenes.
So, what would stop our military from doing its job in Benghazi? Pirro’s account of Obama saying “take care of it”, by itself, should have been sufficient for the military to act. However, additional restrictive parameters like unrealistic RoE could push the risk too high.
If US forces jumped into a ‘hot LZ’ with casualties, or worse, Benghazi turned into a Blackhawk Down scenario – all of it recorded for worldwide propaganda – that would have placed Obama and the military on an Iraq-esque slippery slope in Libya they were committed to avoiding.
Obama’s Libya policy was deliberately designed and represented as his showcase anti-Bush Iraq intervention model with a red line of no military engagement on the ground after regime change. A rescue attempt that could have blown up into something much bigger risked crossing that red line.
The one awful but simple solution to why there was no Benghazi rescue attempt is that Obama is sympathetic and even loyal to the MB and Erdogan. Obama would rather see American casualties than Muslim ones. He doesn’t give a shit for American soldiers or personnel. His foreign policy has one thread to it: empower and complete the Caliphate. That’s how the threads get tied together and our POS POTUS has stated the future does not belong to those who slander Islam and that he would defend Islam against stereotypes. It’s so crazy that it defies comprehension, but Obama is a deeply divided individual with one part Muslim and one part progressive.
Obama’s purpose in Benghazi was helping Erdogan fulfill his mission of hate against Assad. Now it doesn’t make sense for the same terrorists we were aiding to have attacked us, but they did. Why? Because they are monsters. They fight themselves in their tribal and sectarian wars. They kill and rape and terrorize because that’s what they do and it doesn’t make for a whole lot of control. Killed my sister? Ooops. Well, she might have gone out of the house with her hijab. Killed the Americans? Always a good idea. These animals are cannibalizing each other and grilling heads on the barbecue!
I’ll bet Obama probably wished he could join his brethren but whatever he wished he has kept true to his word to defend them.
If there was no rescue attempt — if permission was denied to cross borders, then how were the 30 “survivors” rescued? And if they weren’t rescued, then what really happened to them?
the question is not why the rescue wasn’t launched, but why the ambassador stayed given the threat he perceived and the lack of support he got.
JJ,
I took a look at a map and found at least two, perhaps three places from which help could have been directed toward Benghazi. Read this. To your point about F-16 aircraft stationed in Aviano, there was no need for them to have flown directly from Aviano to Benghazi. They could have made a very brief stop in Sigonella to refuel. That would have given them enough fuel to not just buzz Benghazi but to loiter there for quite a while. Time from Aviano to Benghazi via Sigonella four hours, six max; well within the time frame that the attack actually took place. And as others have point out, no one knew in advance how long the personnel in Benghazi would be under attack.
The Virginian said, “To your point about F-16 aircraft stationed in Aviano, there was no need for them to have flown directly from Aviano to Benghazi. They could have made a very brief stop in Sigonella to refuel.”
Just so.
If the highest priority was to help the people at Benghazi, whatever decisions were made that night by DOD are questionable. That’s why I believe that avoiding any politically messy scenarios was the top priority. When looked at that way, the DOD had to be extremely careful. No tankers, long distances, fog of war, etc. could all be used to excuse inaction. And that’s what Panetta did when he testified in the Senate.
One thing I don’t buy is that jets flying low over the scene would scare the attackers off. Unless the jets could be fed target info from the drone (and that may be possible – I’m too long gone from the air attack business to know) any ordinance they expended could be wasted effort or, worse, become friendly fire.
It would be nice to see the video from the drone and get testimony from the officer on duty who was watching and presumably, relaying that info to commanders.
Too much information isn’t available…….yet. A select committee or independent counsel is needed to get to the bottom of this.
Maybe we’re all over-thinking this. The most plausible explanation is that Obama was told about the attack that afternoon and immediately consulted with Valerie Jarrett, who ordered him to stand down.
I’m actually thinking that one of the political aides gave the instructions to stand down while Obama was sleeping.
That Hillary never returned a phone call after the first one with Hicks is instructive. She knew what this was and immediately sought to disentangle herself from any operation decisions.
holmes said, “That Hillary never returned a phone call after the first one with Hicks is instructive. She knew what this was and immediately sought to disentangle herself from any operation decisions.”
My thought exactly. She knew the SHTF and it could make her look very bad. Not what she had in mind. A cover story must be constructed. She was already using the video excuse when she and Obama met the grieving families at Anderson AFB. She promised Sean Smith’s mother that they would get the producer of the video and punish him.
Of course it’s always possible that she and Obama really believed the video was the prime culprit. If so, they are even more clueless than we thought possible.
Benghazi was Obama’s “October Surprise.”
Despite numerous warnings from many quarters, security was reduced to the point that terrorists were “invited in.”
Obama didn’t anticipate the murders of all those Consular personnel, and probably assumed they would be taken hostage. He could then negotiate their release with “Libyan authorities” — who were indebted to Obama for his help in their seizing control of Libya — and return triumphant like Caesar from the Gallic Wars.
He would then win re-election, and probably another Nobel Peace Prize. He never anticipated the Ambassador and three others would be murdered, but all four victims were sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s re-election…
I believe everything published was actually very
logical. However, think about this, suppose you were to create a awesome
title? I am not saying your information isn’t solid., but suppose you
added a post title to maybe get folk’s attention? I mean neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Why was there no Benghazi rescue attempt?
is kinda plain. You ought to peek at Yahoo’s home page and note how they create article headlines to grab viewers to click.
You might try adding a video or a picture or two to grab people excited about
what you’ve written. In my opinion, it might bring your
blog a little bit more interesting.