The movie 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

[Bullitt]

But, not even the requested F-16 flyover was given, to scare the insurgents and buy a little time. Our guys just needed to make it to daylight, for some hope and help for being able to see better. Sure some had NVGs, but if they could hold out more until daylight it would have been better. That flyover wouldn’t have helped the ambassador but it would have helped the others.

[Wolf333]

@Bullitt

But, not even the requested F-16 flyover was given, to scare the insurgents and buy a little time. Our guys just needed to make it to daylight, for some hope and help for being able to see better. Sure some had NVGs, but if they could hold out more until daylight it would have been better. That flyover wouldn’t have helped the ambassador but it would have helped the others.

http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/question.php?q_id=15

The House Armed Services Committee, the independent Accountability Review Board, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence determined that no F-16s or other strike aircraft could have responded in time to save lives. AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and other military experts all explained that F-16s were not the appropriate military response given the posture of the forces and the risks involved.

[Bullitt]

@Wolf333

AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and other military experts all explained that F-16s were not the appropriate military response given the posture of the forces and the risks involved.

That’s a bunch of baloney and I don’t buy it. I get what they are saying and tactically they are correct, but F-16 flyovers would disrupt the attackers’ momentum and bought valuable time.

[GIGObuster]

@Bullitt

That’s a bunch of baloney and I don’t buy it. I get what they are saying and tactically they are correct, but F-16 flyovers would disrupt the attackers’ momentum and bought valuable time.

Wishful thinking is the best way to run into failure or to make a situation worse.

EXPERT: There Is Absolutely No Way Military Assets Could Have Reached...

Billy Birdzell, a former Marine officer, and special operations team leader, has posted a great piece in Foreign Policy giving a complete breakdown of exactly why there is no way these operators could have saved lives in Benghazi.

The F-16 buzzing over the fighters in order to scatter them:

The final argument, made by a whistleblower at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing, is that the military could have ordered a “flyover” of F-16 fighter jets to “scatter” the militants in Benghazi.

The nearest of these planes was in Aviano, Italy, which is almost exactly the maximum distance that the jets can fly without refueling (provided they aren’t carrying any weapons whatsoever.)

Flying refuelers like the Stratotanker could refuel the jets mid-flight though, right? Not so fast.

As Joe Pappalardo of Popular Mechanics points out, the tempo of operations in Afghanistan and other areas dictates the usage of refuelers, “so getting a Stratotanker over the Adriatic to refuel an F-16 on short notice is pretty hard.”

Assuming they could have gotten the refueler, Pappalardo explains that the military would have been concerned about the possible consequences of flying jets over the attacks in Benghazi:

What happens if there’s a shootdown or a crash? Without ground forces at the ready to rescue a pilot … even a nonviolent show of force over Benghazi would have been very risky. A crash could have created a [fighter jet down] scenario that the military was clearly unready to handle.

So if the proverbial “fools” had rushed in, more lives and expensive equipment may have been lost — and it’s probably safe to say that the current Benghazi witch hunt would have a far shriller tone.

[Kobal2]

@Bullitt

That’s a bunch of baloney and I don’t buy it.

Yeah, what do those idiots know that you don’t ?! It’s only the job they’ve been doing for 20+ years after all. Shoulda asked you.

[TonySinclair]

@Kobal2

Yeah, what do those idiots know that you don’t ?! It’s only the job they’ve been doing for 20+ years after all. Shoulda asked you.

West Point, Schmest Point. He’s spent hours playing Call of Duty, so he knows what he’s talking about.

[Leaper]

… Maybe I’m missing something, but how can something be simultaneously “baloney” and “tactically correct”?

[Wolf333]

@Bullitt

That’s a bunch of baloney and I don’t buy it. I get what they are saying and tactically they are correct, but F-16 flyovers would disrupt the attackers’ momentum and bought valuable time.

Well, there is that whole getting the F-16s there in the first place thing.

[adaher]

The real issue seems to be that no one regarded Libya as a war zone. In Afghanistan, they get air support when they request it. No waiting to see what’s really going on or getting approval from high up, if our troops are in trouble they get whatever they need to get out of it.

[Human_Action]

@adaher

The real issue seems to be that no one regarded Libya as a war zone. In Afghanistan, they get air support when they request it. No waiting to see what’s really going on or getting approval from high up, if our troops are in trouble they get whatever they need to get out of it.

Is that what you think happened? Go re-read the timeline I linked to, troops were ordered mobilized in very short order. The problem with the air support wasn’t that anyone held it back; the problem was that it was 1044 miles away, and in the form of an aircraft with a combat radius of 340 miles.

The problem with ground troops wasn’t that anyone held them back; the problem was that the closest units (other than the security team from the embassy in Tripoli, which was sent to Benghazi) were in Spain and Croatia.

It wasn’t “waiting around”, it was physics.

[Bullitt]

So the movie implied that support could have been ordered, including the F-16s from Aviano, but for some reason the call wasn’t made. Misleading.

[Kobal2]

@Leaper

… Maybe I’m missing something, but how can something be simultaneously “baloney” and “tactically correct”?

<slowly accelerating drum beat> In a world… where events unfold…when the entire world is on the brink… sometimes… the wrong thing to do… is the RIGHT thing to do ! <loud Inception hum>

[Bullitt]

@Kobal2

<slowly accelerating drum beat> In a world… where events unfold…when the entire world is on the brink… sometimes… the wrong thing to do… is the RIGHT thing to do ! <loud Inception hum>

Ha ha, funny. What was needed was close support with the capability to eliminate individual attackers in no light / low light, urban warfare conditions. Absent that, you muster what you can, when you can, if it’ll help in any way.

[Czarcasm]

@Bullitt

Ha ha, funny. What was needed was close support with the capability to eliminate individual attackers in no light / low light, urban warfare conditions. Absent that, you muster what you can, when you can, if it’ll help in any way.

…or even if it won’t, as long as it makes you look patriotic to the masses, right?

[Buck_Godot]

@Bullitt

Ha ha, funny. What was needed was close support with the capability to eliminate individual attackers in no light / low light, urban warfare conditions. Absent that, you muster what you can, when you can, if it’ll help in any way.

If you are thinking about sending in whatever you can muster flying in blind with no intelligence, you should ask yourself whether you would rather have them make the movie “13 hours” regarding your cautiousness or “Blackhawk Down” regarding your impulsiveness.

[adaher]

@Human_Action

Is that what you think happened? Go re-read the timeline I linked to, troops were ordered mobilized in very short order. The problem with the air support wasn’t that anyone held it back; the problem was that it was 1044 miles away, and in the form of an aircraft with a combat radius of 340 miles.

The problem with ground troops wasn’t that anyone held them back; the problem was that the closest units (other than the security team from the embassy in Tripoli, which was sent to Benghazi) were in Spain and Croatia.

It wasn’t “waiting around”, it was physics.

They were actually waiting around. No units had even begun to deploy by the time the attack ended.

[Human_Action]

@adaher

They were actually waiting around. No units had even begun to deploy by the time the attack ended.

A) That’s incorrect, a team was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi and participated in the evacuation.

B) Cite that the 3 other units were waiting around, as opposed to preparing to deploy?

[adaher]

I was referring to air support. Is it normal policy for the US to send in troops without air support?

[Human_Action]

@adaher

I was referring to air support.

I see. What units were available but not deployed?

Is it normal policy for the US to send in troops without air support?

I wouldn’t know. The security team from the Tripoli embassy was sent to Benghazi with only a Predator drone for air cover, so apparently not in all cases.

[Dissonance]

@Bullitt

Ha ha, funny. What was needed was close support with the capability to eliminate individual attackers in no light / low light, urban warfare conditions. Absent that, you muster what you can, when you can, if it’ll help in any way.

Yes, because nothing will break up the attackers momentum like overflights by F-16s incapable of eliminating individual attackers in no light/low light urban warfare even if they were armed as opposed to doing an unarmed overflight and then having to ditch in the Mediterranean on the way home when they run out of fuel. I’m sure that would have been helpful in some way.