Do you concede the WH had no way knowing Steven and Smith would die if they launched support and that’s it’s their duty to protect them? Do you concede that well trained special ops troops could move personnel to safety instead of making them sitting ducks?
Your entire decision model is that something could have gone wrong so don’t bother.
Based on your decision model you should have 911 block your phone number. Somebody might get hurt responding to your emergency.
It’s generally good form to answer questions, rather than side-stepping as you’ve done here. Bad show, sir.
Obama was briefed as to what was happening at aroun 11 pm. By then, Smith’s body had been found, and it had been discovered that Stevens was absent from the compound.
Have you actually read the timeline?
Yes, it is. But time and physics beats duty every single time.
Not in this case. One man was already known to be dead, and the other gone from the compound. The CIA and DS teams that made the final search for Stevens were in armored vehicles, and unless Obama invented a teleporter, there was no way to have anyone from Europe assisting them by 11 pm.
Not at all, my decision model is the one rational people use, it weighs likely gains against likely losses. Yours seems based on symbolism and ignores costs altogether.
Can you articulate some kind of benefit from the military intervention you’re advocating?
People’s propensity to make bad declensions is not really all that uncommon or in dispute. Assigning rationality as a primary criteria is this case is remarkably disingenuous. The ability to make good decision without enough information to clearly assign rationality separates the smart people from the dumb people.
Let’s just hope the people getting paid to make life and death decisions at the upper levels of our government and military do better next time.
Was there a need for a “coordinated, authoritative military response” in this case, or not?
Standard operating procedure, as you have been shown, is not to send in troops when we don’t have intel about what is going on.
But your ideological hate of Obama is so overwhelming, that you simply refuse to allow the possibility that the misinformation you heard about this on RW media is wrong.
I suspect you don’t care about what is actually true, and simply want to stick to the fiction that you find pleasing.
It’s completely out of sync with the stated goal of this message board.
Why isn’t your handle Human "In"Action? If hindsight were money you’d be a millionaire.
And OBTW, that is not what is in question here, so your ad-hoc hypothesis about the need for action or not is irrelevant.
don’t even go down that road.
And?
you’re deliberately fronting a strawman knowing the attacks went on well past 11 pm. The same plane used for the special ops people becomes the plane evacuating Americans in Libya. There isn’t a sound reason not to launch the mission. They could easily have placed troops on the ground before the last attack.
Rational people respond to threats all the time. There is no symbolism involved.
That’s fucking retarded. We don’t let people die because of a lack of intel. And we had better intel assets in the area with drones than the terrorists.
There is no misinformation that the WH did nothing.
What is true is that the WH didn’t know the end results and chose to do nothing.
Because I wasn’t influenced by a book called Human Inaction.
The thread is “Benghazi Attack for Dummies”, so all questions related to the attack are relevant. Certainly Magiver has been adament about the need for a military intervention, and that back-and-forth has comprised the bulk of the thread.
You wrote:
That implies that there are hypothoses that qualify or disqualify the need for a coordinated, authoritative military response in this case that are not nonsense. What might they be?
You mean besides saving the lives of people toward the end of the attack and evacuating people out of the country sooner?
Then don’t engage in that behavior.
Therefore, nothing further could be achieved through force at the Consulate, and Obama knew that. The CIA annex was well-defended, and losses came from a mortar attack that more men on the ground could not have prevented.
Yes, there are sound reasons: there wasn’t time to organize and deploy them (that 24-hour detail you’re ignoring), they wouldn’t have done any good, they’d have been exposed to fire in a dense urban environment while trying to reach the CIA annex, the CIA annex was well-defended, and the net effect would have been more dead Americans. Which, no doubt, you’d be castigating Obama for.
Not if the likely loss exceeds the likely gain, they don’t.
Does it change anything on the ground? No. Does it matter? Yes. If it didn’t matter and someone said that Jospeh Stalin was responsible for the attack, would you correct that?
No, I didn’t forget that. I also haven’t forgotten that you will do anything that you can imagine to blame any problem in the world on Democrats.
I think the content of one’s posts matter more than a little joke on a “location” line.
How are Woods and Doherty saved, exactly?
You seem tremendously confident both that a FAST team could get into the annex, with vehicles, fast enough to affect the evacuation time, and that they wouldn’t be bogged down in a hostile city and be in need of rescue themselves, in a replay of the Battle of Mogadishu. Why should anyone share your confidence?
There are none. Attempting to contrive them is kinda dumb.
Later in the attack is not correct. The original attack ended within about an hour when the CIA and 60 Libyans cleared the consulate compound.
The second fatal attack came at the CIA Annex where all Americans were being protected from extremist fighters but two Americans were killed by a mortar blast on the roof.
No small special forces rushed in could have discovered the mortar launcher and eliminated it unless they went door to door and asking residents if they had any mortars or rocket launchers ready to fire.
But Obama could have ordered a bombing run that killed every living being for a few mile perimeter around the annex but I doubt delivering that much munitions was not ready to go either.
But keep posting what all your errant beliefs are Magiver. This is classic material. Don’t quit. What else can you come up with?
By being evacuated.
You seem tremendously confident that the entire city of Benghazi was out to kill them and a traffic jam would be their undoing.
As for the Battle of Mogadishu, that was an offensive maneuver designed to kill specific people. Conservatively it had a US kill ratio of 71 to 1. This was a rescue mission. There is a risk involved and those going into it know the risk just as the firemen going into the WTC knew the risk. This is what a FAST team trains to do. So yes, I think they could have saved lives if they went in. There was plenty of time to insert them at a location of their choosing and confront terrorists who don’t have a fraction of the training, equipment, intel or air support they bring to the fight.
No, you just don’t understand the issue and are raging because you don’t want to face the facts.
No, we don’t send it soldiers to die without proper intel and planning. You’ve been told this, and shown it to be fact, but you still stick with your nonsense, cartoonish beliefs.
Which, “the terrorists”? This is another example of your sloppy, thinking on the subject. Our intelligence professionals do a complex job. They provide data that is acted on. Our intel was terrible in Benghazi because it was an unexpected attack.
You’re basing that on the nonsense view that they could have sent soldiers blinding stumbling into a firefight and somehow saved the day.
You’re wrong. Get used to it.
Not true. The WH did the right thing, and acted on military procedure.
Why would they do that? It was a rescue mission. It would be nice to go after them as a secondary mission objective but the object is to get the people under attack to safety.