# Benghazi Attack for Dummies. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466 "2013-11-08T23:46:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Acewiza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f475e1/32.png) [@Acewiza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acewiza)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/401 "2013-11-22T20:28:07Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > From this were composed an almost unimaginable number of possible contingencies. “Loss of Number 6 engine on Route Segment Beta-8” and “Incapacitation of tail gunner during bomb run due to flak strike without loss of empennage control” and hundreds more. (Did you know the B-52 has a 50 caliber machine gun turret in the tail? Always seemed like tits on a boar to me, but I used to bass fish with my brother’s “Guns”.) Mission contingencies filled volumes the size of phone books, and the crews practiced them endlessly, both on the ground and in “training flights” that commonly lasted more than 11 hours. Guess we should never have bothered even attempting to plan those missions then, since so many things could have gone wrong? 😕 That is after all, the nutshell reason Benghazi apologists give for the confabulated rescue mission scenario refutes. The analogy runs contrary to your intended use. I respond only in terms of the fallacious argument angle, not any veracity or lack thereof regarding military missions of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/402 "2013-11-22T20:36:34Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Guess we should never have bothered even attempting to plan those missions then, since so many things could have gone wrong? 😕 > > That is after all, the nutshell reason Benghazi apologists give for the confabulated rescue mission scenario refutes. > > The analogy runs contrary to your intended use. > > I respond only in terms of the fallacious argument angle, not any veracity or lack thereof regarding military missions of any kind. Yes, because you’ve demonstrated that you know nothing about military missions of any kind. Planning is our only assurance that things have even a snowball’s chance of going right. We don’t (luckily) know how adequate the planning was for a strategic nuclear strike on the USSR. We can though be pretty certain that a totally unprepared force, thrown into Benghazi without definition of realistic goals and lacking knowledge of the situation on the ground, has an extremely high probability of failure. Including additional casualties. _NUMBER plus ONE!!_ ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/403 "2013-11-22T20:40:34Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Guess we should never have bothered even attempting to plan those missions then, since so many things could have gone wrong? 😕 > > That is after all, the nutshell reason Benghazi apologists give for the confabulated rescue mission scenario refutes. > > The analogy runs contrary to your intended use. > > I respond only in terms of the fallacious argument angle, not any veracity or lack thereof regarding military missions of any kind. That’s a strawman argument (as **CannyDan** never said the missions shouldn’t have been planned), _and_ a false dilemma (by excluding all distinctions beyond whether anything could have possibly gone wrong, thus reducing it to a binary risk/no risk decision). ---
**Author:** ![Acewiza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f475e1/32.png) [@Acewiza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acewiza)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/404 "2013-11-22T20:43:27Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s a strawman argument (as **CannyDan** never said the missions shouldn’t have been planned), _and_ a false dilemma (by excluding all distinctions beyond whether anything could have possibly gone wrong, thus reducing it to a binary risk/no risk decision). Excellent analysis - touche! ---
**Author:** ![Acewiza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f475e1/32.png) [@Acewiza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acewiza)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/405 "2013-11-22T20:48:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s a strawman argument (as **CannyDan** never said the missions shouldn’t have been planned) But many others including yourself have argued emphatically against it. Fact is, special operators get alot of downtime after they get qualified and posted, spending a great deal of it planning and practicing all sorts of scenarios just as Dan suggests. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > , _and_ a false dilemma (by excluding all distinctions beyond whether anything could have possibly gone wrong, thus reducing it to a binary risk/no risk decision). That would be begging the question. Nobody ever got into any of the real details, because they have no clue what they actually are in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Acewiza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f475e1/32.png) [@Acewiza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acewiza)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/406 "2013-11-22T20:59:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Do tell, what was the proposition that was assumed to be true because it hadn’t been proven false? Have you figured it out yet? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/407 "2013-11-22T21:02:04Z")
You soured on my analysis quickly, eh? Are you actually several people posting under one name? That would explain a lot. > [@Acewiza](#): > > But many others including yourself have argued emphatically against it. Fact is, special operators get alot of downtime after they get qualified and posted, spending a great deal of it planning and practicing all sorts of scenarios just as Dan suggests. Nope. I was referring to the _bombing_ missions, as were you ("…we should never have bothered even attempting to plan those missions then, since so many things could have gone wrong?), not a Benghazi mission. Who’s argued against planning a Benghazi mission? The arguments are a) that there was not sufficient time to create a plan, gather the team and equipment and put it into action, and/or b) the threat the annex was facing didn’t justify putting more lives at risk. > [@Acewiza](#): > > That would be begging the question. Nobody ever got into any of the real details, because they have no clue what they actually are in the first place. Nope. Begging the question is assuming the truth of one’s conclusion as part of the argument for it being true. What did I assume the truth of? Nothing. I pointed out your false dilemma: we don’t need to know the exact levels of risk inherent in different sorts of military action to know that the levels vary, and that the level of risk can inform the decision as to whether or not to undertake a mission. > [@Acewiza](#): > > Have you figured it out yet? That you don’t know the meanings of the terms you’re using? Yes, some time ago. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/408 "2013-11-22T21:14:27Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Have you figured it out yet? Apparently not or else he wouldn’t have asked the question. Are you able to answer his question? Being coy serves no purpose in Great Debates. And only leads us to believe that that you have no legitimate response. I am also still awaiting your explanation of all of the other misused logical fallacies in my [other thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=708401). ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/409 "2013-11-22T21:33:06Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > You soured on my analysis quickly, eh? Are you actually several people posting under one name? That would explain a lot. OK, let’s get that under control. That’s getting towards attacking the poster and not the post. No warning issued. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/410 "2013-11-22T23:03:58Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Probably about the same standard deviation as any nuclear bomb run. There was no deviation in nuclear bombing plans. Each flight of B-52s (and each boomer sub as well) had their lists of strike packages, possible routes, probable threats along the way and so on set in stone and trained for them specifically, every fricking day. Permanent rehearsal for the end of the world. The point was two-fold : first, if the crews knew exactly where they must go, what landmarks they were supposed to look for and so on and had all that data not just committed to memory but trained into the core of their being, they wouldn’t get lost so much even if instruments failed (remember, this was back before ubiquitous GPS and sat nav. Or Google Maps :D). Second, of course, was to cut on response time and confusion about who should do what and go where when 5 minutes from now their airfields, along with most of the nation’s CC&C, are pencilled to become slightly glowing dust. Point is, the SAC wasn’t very flexible in what they did. They planned and trained and focused 100% on “what if the Reds launched their nuclear arsenal at us out of the blue ?”, which itself had quite a few configurations but is still a whole lot more focused than “doing some high speed spec ops shit somewhere, I 'unno”. [QUOTE=Magiver] If the United States was attacked do you think the response time is 6 hrs? Every military base would be ashes before a plane got off the ground. The response time is measured in minutes, not hours. [/QUOTE] One surmises a ground assault on the United States would be made somewhat predictable by, e.g. huge fleets of troop transports crossing the Pacific ;). But since I remember being reminded a lot that America Was Under Attack !!! a couple years back, what was the response time on 9/11 ? Wiki sez : > [@](#): > > At 8:32 a.m., [Federal Aviation Administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) officials were notified Flight 11 had been hijacked and they in turn notified the [North American Aerospace Defense Command](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command) (NORAD). NORAD scrambled two [F-15s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle) from [Otis Air National Guard Base](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_Air_National_Guard_Base) in Massachusetts and they were airborne by 8:53 a.m.[Because of slow and confused communication from FAA officials, NORAD had 9 minutes’ notice that Flight 11 had been hijacked, and no notice about any of the other flights before they crashed.[URL=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#cite\_note-norad-161”]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#cite_note-norad-161)After both of the Twin Towers had already been hit, more fighters were scrambled from [Langley Air Force Base](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Base_Langley%E2%80%93Eustis) in Virginia at 9:30 a.m. At 10:20 a.m. Vice President [Dick Cheney](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) issued orders to shoot down any commercial aircraft that could be positively identified as being hijacked. So that’s 20 minutes for the very first 2 planes, one hour for additional birds, and two whole hours before they had any definite orders. The last hijacked liner had crashed about 20 minutes before Cheney’s decision. Oh, and > [@](#): > > However, these instructions were not relayed in time for the fighters to take action.[[URL=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#cite\_note-162”]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#cite_note-norad-161) Some fighters took to the air without live ammunition, knowing that to prevent the hijackers from striking their intended targets, the pilots might have to intercept and crash their fighters into the hijacked planes, possibly ejecting at the last moment.[URL=“[September 11 attacks - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#cite_note-165)”] Now that’s one well thought out mission plan :). And that’s what you get “in minutes”, stateside, when confronted with events people haven’t been preparing for : unarmed Air Force jets. But you expect better than that, much better than that in fact since you expect results on par with the Bin Laden raid, from soldiers stranded out there in Red Tape Foreign Land, everywhere on the planet ? In less than 30 minutes ? Get real. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/411 "2013-11-23T00:19:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > We were told that it was a result of a YouTube video put out that was disrespectful to Islam that resulted in a spontaneous demonstration outside of the embassy that got out of hand. Just a reminder. We were not told (the deaths of four Americans) was a result of a YouTube video. We were told that the deaths of four Americans was the results of heavily armed extremists and that was very clear. And as this thread has unfolded we see that the last two Americans who were killed and who’s deaths were never said to be the ‘result’ of a YouTube video or a demonstration or anything else. And the latter two Americans killed seems to be driving what all the armchair general-ing is mostly about. The Administration did not send in US Military Special Forces to whisk Woods and Dougherty away to safety. The claim is that Obama left them to die. That is a political attack and nothing more. We need to knock that down as well as the one about blaming the attack and deaths on the YouTube video. No one has provided a direct quote to back up that accusation. I am still waiting. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/412 "2013-11-23T01:15:49Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > I’m no longer responding to confabulation about a rescue mission that never took place. > > That concept gives true meaning to the audience for “Benghazi for Dummies.” You have already received one Warning in this thread for this type of behavior, [followed by a Mod Note to stop it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16868748#post16868748). This is a Warning that if you continue to flout the rules, you will be banned. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/413 "2013-11-23T01:49:42Z")
For historical comparison – how long did it take Israel to plan and prep for the raid on Entebbe to rescue hostages? This is often held up as one of the best planned and best executed raids ever: how long between the time it was assigned to the planners – “Plan this; we’ll execute it” – and the planes leaving the ground? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/414 "2013-11-23T01:57:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > For historical comparison – how long did it take Israel to plan and prep for the raid on Entebbe to rescue hostages? This is often held up as one of the best planned and best executed raids ever: how long between the time it was assigned to the planners – “Plan this; we’ll execute it” – and the planes leaving the ground? Wiki sez : > [@](#): > > The operation took place at night. Israeli transport planes carried 100 commandos over 2,500 miles (4,000 km) to Uganda for the rescue operation. The operation,\*\* which took a week of planning\*\*, lasted 90 minutes. 102 hostages were rescued. (emphasis mine) Furthermore : > [@](#): > > [Mossad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) built **an accurate picture of the whereabouts of the hostages, the number of terrorists, and the involvement of Ugandan troops** from the released hostages in Paris.[[38]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid#cite_note-TimeMagazine-39) Additionally, Israeli firms were involved in building projects in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s and while preparing the raid the Israeli army consulted with [Solel Boneh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solel_Boneh), a large Israeli construction company that had built the terminal where the hostages were held.[[39]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid#cite_note-40) **While planning the military operation the IDF erected a partial replica of the airport terminal with the help of civilians who had helped build the original**. > > Muki Betzer said in a later [Associated Press](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press) interview that Mossad operatives extensively interviewed the hostages who had been released.[[40]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid#cite_note-betzer-41) He said that a French-Jewish passenger who had a military background and “a phenomenal memory” provided\*\* detailed information about the number of weapons carried by the hostage-takers\*\*.[[40]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid#cite_note-betzer-41) So that’s a \*bit \*more intel and prep-work than what the US had on the sitch in Benghazi 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Acewiza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f475e1/32.png) [@Acewiza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acewiza)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/415 "2013-11-23T02:01:19Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > So that’s a \*bit \*more intel and prep-work than what the US had on the sitch in Benghazi 🙂 Benghazi was not a hostage situation. It was a terrorist attack. Soooo, that would be another bad analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/416 "2013-11-23T02:22:37Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Benghazi was not a hostage situation. It was a terrorist attack. > > Soooo, that would be another bad analogy. I do appreciate you taking time to bestow such wisdom upon us. You might note that complex military action takes time to plan and prepare for. This undercuts Magellan’s weirdly unsophisticated version of military planning. You might further note, that a hostage situation, has fewer variables than a battle where you have no information as to the number, location, and capabilities of your foes. If you take a moment to examine your position, I think you’ll see the error of blindly siding with everything that RW media whispers in your ear. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/417 "2013-11-23T03:01:55Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Benghazi was not a hostage situation. It was a terrorist attack. > > Soooo, that would be another bad analogy. Can you provide a better one? That is, is there an incident similar to the Benghazi attack that you can point to as an exemplar of how things _should_ have been handled? I’m seeing you gainsaying every suggestion, but not offering any of your own. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/418 "2013-11-23T03:02:48Z")
The OP author asked for facts and deserves to see the facts. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wahhh! The CIA made me do it!! You can’t blame me-- the CIA hid coded messages in my talking points, and I was unable to filter them out. I said it, but I didn’t _want_ to say it, so it’s the same as if I _didn’t_ say it. I’d like to know why John Mace is arguing that the CIA is not responsible for the work product it put out to Congress and the White House on September 14, 2012. The CIA produced the word ‘demonstrations’ that were ‘inspired’ by the protests. Nowhere does the CIA or did Susan Rice or anyone else ‘blame’ the deaths of four Americans or the attack on the youTube video. A demonstration did not kill anyone. The CIA mistakenly reported ‘demonstrations’ took place in Benghazi where it was presumed to be ‘inspired’ by the events earlier in the day in Cairo. The CIA accurately ‘blamed’ the ‘attack’ on ‘extremists’. That is exactly what Rice repeated from the CIA talking points on the Sunday Morning News shows. Nothing like reading the actual documents: Scroll down to page 14 an 15 to see the actual document. > **[White House Benghazi Emails | PDF](https://www.scribd.com/doc/141729513/White-House-Benghazi-Emails)** > > White House Benghazi Emails Page 15 (4:42 p.m) CIA sends out a new draft for review before sending to the White House. “We believe based on currently available information that the \*\*demonstrations in Benghazi \*\*were spontaneously \*\*inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo \*\*and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated.” If the OP is still interested it is important to know that the CIA originated the idea that there was a demonstration that preceded the attack at Benghazi. It was not the White House that made it up to cover up the truth that it was a terrorist attack for political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Duality](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.duality/32/4098_2.png) [@Mr.Duality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Duality)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/419 "2013-11-23T03:52:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I do appreciate you taking time to bestow such wisdom upon us. > > You might note that complex military action takes time to plan and prepare for. This undercuts Magellan’s weirdly unsophisticated version of military planning. > > You might further note, that a hostage situation, has fewer variables than a battle where you have no information as to the number, location, and capabilities of your foes. > > If you take a moment to examine your position, I think you’ll see the error of blindly siding with everything that RW media whispers in your ear. Wins the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/420 "2013-11-23T03:59:43Z")
> [@Acewiza](#): > > Benghazi was not a hostage situation. It was a terrorist attack. > > Soooo, that would be another bad analogy. True, I was actually coming back to specify that (although a more nitpicky soul than mine might make light of you anyway - what is a politically motivated hostage taking, if not a terrorist attack ?). The Benghazi attack was not an ongoing situation - first some dudes attacked and over the course of their 20 minutes or so of fighting and rocket throwing managed to set the building on fire, then the next day someone or someones rained a handful of mortar shells before disappearing back into the crowd. And that, as they say, was that. So, given that, I’m not sure what you expect \*\*should \*\*have been done against that above what _was_ done. Do feel free to elaborate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466.md?page=22)