We, as in the political we. The White House. “We” knew what was going on because the embassy staff was in contact with the White House. complete with drone video.
From Forbes: Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site.
Are you suggesting the embassies of the most powerful nation on earth don’t have the capacity to communicate in real time?
I’m sorry I gave you the impression I was suggesting anything. Not my intention.
So you’re arguing that there was a clear military understanding of the tactical situation on the ground, sufficient to commit military assets in time to assist?
Sufficient to insert a specialized unit trained to deal with such events?
I would have to say yes. They can insert anywhere they choose with the advantage of knowing where the attackers are. They can bring whatever equipment they choose with them. They can call in pinpoint airstrikes.
Plus, they’re invincible. So it doesn’t matter how many enemy troops are there or how they are armed, because…invincible. Yeah, sure, Blackhawk Down, I know. Those guys weren’t invincible.
This is such profound and utter nonsense it floors me.
You literally think you have a better grasp of deployment of troops than a successful SoD. Then you come up with a bullshit action movie version of what you think they should have done.
You should be embarrassed of your former comment because I proved it beyond any doubt to be tripe, but instead, you somehow take it as cause to double down.
I would like to apologize to John Mace, Magiver and jtgain for being boorish and partisan and silly. There is really no excuse for having lack of respect for your world view on such things such as asking for a source on the subject of the thead to back up claims, declarations, narratives such as this:
Excerpts from this thread alone:
“We were told that it was a result of a YouTube video …”
'Clinton seemed to want to pin things on the video. "
"It was mishandled by the White House who then went on to blame a movie director over the assault. "
“but the idea that the administration didn’t initially blame the attack on protests over the video is nonsense”
Please accept my sincere apology:
full quotes and my request for sourcing provided below:
I strongly agree with you that Secretary Gates has a better handle on what could have been done during the early stages of the attack where Ambassador Stevens was killed than anyone posting on this forum. During those early moments - Most Americans were evacuated and secured . It was unfortunate that Stevens and one other were separated from the rescued group and was overcome by the smoke from diesel fires that were set by the attackers. Knowing that plus the fact that there was a lull in the fighting before the two former Navy Seals were killed at the CIA annex by a remotely fired rocket that hit the roof of the CIA annex makes opposition to Sec Gate’s comments clear, understandable and accurate. Any attempt to dismiss Gates on this is unfounded.
Those fact make it clear that a Special Ops team could not have gotten there in time to save Stevens … and nothing short of carpet bombing the entire perimeter of the CIA annex site would have eliminated the attacker who fired the rocket later in the day.
I don’t think we could have justified carpet bombing the mostly friendly Benghazi residents and inflicting heavy civilian casualties in the process to protect CIA assets at a secret CIA operated site.
What action movie scenario did I propose exactly? How is the use of specially trained troops all of a sudden a fantasy against groups like Al Queda? Explain why it’s impossible to parachute a mile away from the conflict and then form up to protect US assets and citizens. Seriously, what is the big movie fantasy you see here? They have all the advantage of stealth, equipment and surveillance at their disposal plus they train for such events.
Police are brought into shooting incidences all the time in the United States with far far less assets to work with. If we can’t use troops to fight off attacks of such a small scale then there is no point in having a military.
“Pinpoint” airstrike still have error radii of a couple dozen meters. That’s a a lot of boom to drop on random innocents by mistake, and even if you don’t give a fuck about all them brown people it might land on, consider it could also have landed on the US embassy itself. Or the troops calling in the danger close airstrike. Oops.
Not to mention that a building violently going down in a populated area will always cause innocent casualties, even if the bomb is spot on target - that masonry going up must come down according to MC Newton. That building is also probably going to be inhabitated. There’ll be pictures of dead children the next day. There will be dead children, period.
So, in spite of the competition for that spot, not one of your greatest ideas.
Last I checked, people don’t have rocket launchers to shoot at cops in the US. And few shooting incidents involve crowds of armed citizens packing Russian assault rifles - when they do it’s called a “siege” (or a “revolution” :)) and it typically ends badly.
Not to mention the tiny issue of Libya’s sovereignty.
Maybe if an old GPS delivered weapon was used. Why would such a weapon be used?
Brown people? That’s the line you’re going with now? Can’t reason through an argument so you throw in racial issues?
why would we bring down a building? We were talking about boots on the ground. No need to carpet bomb anything. No need for a $1.4M cruise missile. Something like a Hydra 70 with an APKWS laser guided system would deliver RPG sized munitions to the exact location designated.
ever heard of a bomb squad? They’ve had one in Los Angeles since 1950. Either they have a vivid imagination or it’s on the list of shit they have to deal with. Police may not regularly see RPG’s but the bullets fired at them are just as real as those shot at the military. They put themselves in harms way as they are trained to do.
We’re suddenly concerned about the Libyan’s are we? Just got done bombing the fuck out of them but we’ll pretend that didn’t happen. Well no we won’t actually.
Here is a partial list of countries we sent cruise missiles to:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Pakistan
Sudan
Yemen
Obama’s been bombing a shitload of brown people since he’s been in office. Is that why he’s not concerned with their sovereignty? Because of the color of their skin?
We have a right as a country to defend ourselves at embassies and it is the duty of the President to do so. He is the CIC.
Will there be a response to my argument and point or is this it? How does a Special Forces team locate the site of the rocket that was launched that killed the two former Navy Seals at the CIA Annex?
IF you have no legitimate response I understand but why would you continue to make a case that you know more than Secretary Gates about what could have been done on that day?.
It is not impossible. It was impractical and not what was needed.
Early after the initial attack Ninety Percent of the Americans had already been evacuated so your "parachute a mile away from the conflict and then form up " makes no practical sense even in hindsight.
It was a lone fired rocket that killed the last two Americans of the day who were at the CIA Annex. Most Americans were evacuated. Why can’t you accept the conditions on the ground that do not support your complaint about what was not done?
My confidence in the fact that conservatives are savvy about the realities of military actions is once again shaken.
The only details that magiver left out are that the mission leader will be smoking a fat cigar, and the mission roster will include a wisecracking white guy, a hard edged tough as nails Hispanic woman and a big bald black guy.
It was a legitimate response to an incredibly odd statement. To start with the idea of carpet bombing anything is an archaic waste of time. I don’t understand why you would suggest something like that. As for the location of the group attacking the embassy they were under surveillance from drones.
you haven’t explained what was complex about a mission involving advanced surveillance of an enemy that lacked the modern training and equipment of a 1st world military.
I find myself torn. When considering the appropriateness and abilitites of American’s military response in Benghazi, do I trust former Sec. Def. Robert Gates, retired Admiral Mike Mullen, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, and this administration, or Magiver? Tough call.