Benghazi Attack for Dummies.

Interesting that you seem to recognize the differences. My brother once flew for SAC, back in the day. I stayed with him and his family at his base once, for my summer vacation. Half a dozen B-52’s were on ready alert, loaded with atomic weapons. Ground crews manned the planes 24/7. Flight crews lived a week at a time in the “ready shack” next to the runways. Asked how long it would take to get planes launched, if the order came, his response was “very quickly”. I pressed him, but he wouldn’t give any details. I started naming minute counts (“30…. 20…. 15….”) and he’d shake his head. When I got to 10 he winked, and said not to ask any more because I was getting close.

But this was a highly specific mission plan, totally unambiguous and repeatedly rehearsed – jump in your airplane, fly to some destination to be given you after you are airborne, and drop nuclear weapons. Then think about whether trying to return home is worth the effort. Nothing at all like launching a strike force into some unknown ground combat situation. You can’t pre-plan a generalized loadout for something like this. Urban environment or flooded jungle? Search and destroy or rescue? Friendly or unfriendly general environment? Weaponry, transportation, optics and visualization gear, communications, even clothing, will differ. So too will personnel assignments and roles.

Yes I am sure that you could call many modern air services and get some kind of airplane into flight rather quickly – even in the 30 minutes you claim, at least some of the time in some places. Like here in the USA. But worldwide? And what kind of plane? Small or large, passenger or cargo, fixed wing or rotating, equipped for landing on pavement, dirt, water, snow? And this is an aircraft and flight crew. Nobody else, no other personnel, and no equipment. Certainly no mission-specific equipment. And here it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about military hardware or a civilian rush job, maybe ground penetrating radar for an oil wildcatter, or climbing gear for an alpine rescue team. The shit just isn’t on or nearby the plane. It has to be (1) identified, (2) located, (3) procured, (4) delivered, and (5) loaded.

Hell, depending on the airplane, it might have to be palletized, or sacked and strapped. It will surely have to be weighed, or weights estimated and distributed, along with personnel load, to ensure airworthiness. It isn’t like throwing suitcases in the trunk of the Dodge. Even a prepared military unit like the rapid deployment teams of varying acronyms will need to review their specific load in relation to the specific mission, pre-launch. Failure to do so raises the likelihood that some critical bit will be overlooked, and a bunch of unneeded gear will get in the way. “Hey, look! We’ve got mortars and nobody to carry them; meantime, who’s got the night vision gear? Anybody? Oh shit.” As you’ve been told repeatedly, people die from this kind of poor planning.

How you can compare “I can get an airplane chartered and airborne in 30 minutes…” with a military rescue mission into a foreign sovereignty from another foreign sovereignty, crossing other foreign sovereignties, done without any reconnaissance, is ludicrous. Time to drop that stupid assertion.

You answered your own question(s):

Urban assault and hostage rescue “is” a “highly specific mission plan” special operators in all branches of the armed services train intensively on.

Is it your understanding that all buildings have the same layout? All cities? All enemies have the same number and weaponry? Every situation is different, and different things are dealt with differently.

Has this thread devolved so much that it has to be explained that all “hostage rescue” (which isn’t what this was) scenarios are different?

I would bet that the word “plan” in your sentence above, includes proper intelligence and adequate time to consider both the location of innocents and friendlies and the ‘fall out’ should they get hit by the assault team.

**

Surely “urban rescue” differs from “jungle rescue”, I’ll grant. And surely some rapid extraction teams exist and have practiced the generalities of urban situations. But that doesn’t mean “a highly specific mission plan” exists for every possible contingency. Are the captive parties being held in a basement fortress surrounded by armed regular or irregular troops, or are they chained to a bed on the 25th floor of a hotel and guarded by 2 guys with pistols? Are the local citizens supportive, aggressive, or unknowing? What are the rules of engagement and the acceptability of collateral damage and civilian casualties? Can we expect support or interference from local police and civil officials? How about local military units?

I need not go on, although I could. The real world possibilities are endless, and the point is that even a trained and prepared military force, with transport at the ready and near a supply depot full of all possible matériel, will not be ordered to jump into action and fly off into an unknown situation. Some amount of intel is necessary before even the outer parameters of the mission can be determined. What is the goal or goals? What risks and/or casualties are acceptable (whether to the strike force or the “bad guys” or the surrounding civilian population)? What losses are not? Then suitable gear can be loaded. Specific roles and duties can perhaps be ruminated and assigned during the transit, if sufficient information becomes available.

Without this kind of mission-specific planning, the raid simply cannot go forward. Doing so invites not just unacceptable and avoidable casualties, but mission failure. And that is exactly the decision made in the affair under discussion.

I like how one side of this debate showed up with facts and the other showed up with copies of The A-Team.

Acewiza - will you please elaborate on your charge that security requests from the ambassador in Libya that could have prevented this attack were refused? Otherwise it gives the impression that this is just another one of those Fox News-style talking points that evaporate under scrutiny.

Probably about the same standard deviation as any nuclear bomb run.

About similar in planning scope as any nuclear bomb run.

Just as are the real world possibilities in most nuclear bomb runs.

Pedantic reasoning repeatedly posed in this thread weighs the value of military intelligence exclusively on the side of the Americans. How naive is that? Heightened embassy and consular security postures with additional security personnel and equipment would not only have repelled the attack had it happened, but most likely deterred it from ever taking place to begin with.

Why won’t Acewiza and Magiver question the CIA for not having a more fortress-like safe area in dangerous parts if the world like Libya awash with heavy weapons and mortar launchers?

Woods and Dougherty were manning a machine gun on the roof when they were killed. A rooftop machige gun appears to be a good defense against a frontal assault by militants with AK47s but not much deterrence agsinst rockets and mortars.

Again there appears to have been enough security in the area of attack to fend off a good many attackers but no plan was in place for incoming rockets and mortar shells.

That what if about outside military forces flying in does not address the real threat that took two lives that day.

Well, I think you’ve had plenty of opportunity now to make good on your claims against Hillary.
Alas, apparently you are nothing but bluster and empty phrases.

Unfortunately, due to Republican budget cuts, there wasn’t enough money for that.

For the record, what the fuck?

So you’ve given up on actual refutation of our assertions, and moved into the land of fantasy irrelevancies. Good job!

I’ll chalk up this last round of desperately repeated faulty reasoning as argumentum ad ignorantiam and call it “eight.”

It was Hillary’s responsibility to divvy up the budget she had.

Security apparently wasn’t a priority.

When was the last time you planned a nuclear strike mission? You admitted your SAC-associate didn’t tell you much.

Pleased try to read carefully and keep up.