This is ***not ***a debate thread, this is a General Question:
The folks who claim there was a stand-down order at Benghazi - what do they put forth as the motive?
Do they think the administration wanted to see the ambassador dead?
Do they think military intervention would have been considered ‘provocative’ or politically inflammatory?
Do they think sending troops would have increased American casualties and the administration just wanted to cut its losses and run?
It will end up one. Moved.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Can we at least give it a chance in General Questions first? For all we know maybe people *will * keep it factual and non-political.
Why do people imagine there was an Apollo hoax? What do the chemtrails people think is going on? What do the Birthers and Truthers think about the world?
You’re asking a silly question: they think that bad wicked evil sinful Obama and traitorous murderous Clinton deliberately led good innocent sweet sinless virtuous white children to the slaughterhouse BECAUSE!
That’s all they have. BECAUSE!
At least the global-warming-deniers have something halfway meaningful to accuse their enemies of: wanting money diverted to their universities for research. That’s a halfway rational conspiracy fantasy.
The Benghazi fantasy is absurd, because it doesn’t even offer a purpose. It just imagines Obama, happily cackling while people die. They’ve got nothing meaningful to offer.
They have a narrative. They seek justifications for that narrative.
I’m going to guess it’s some combination of;
Generally, the grass roots of the right view Democrats as feckless intellectuals not up to the task of military command. This has its origins going way back into the Cold War and flared up again big time after 9/11. So there doesn’t need to be some wider conspiracy, just gross incompetence and coverups. You do see some goofier CTs, like Obama being in on it and so on, but it’s generally presented as them being screwups.
Know your enemy, else you start spouting stuff like “they hate us for our freedoms.”
This is not true.
Well… most of it is not true. I agree with calling the general Benghazi accusations “absurd,” but I don’t agree that the conspiracy theory fails to offer a motive. But the accusations above about “deliberately led good innocent sweet sinless virtuous white children to the slaughterhouse” are strawmen.
It’s absolutely possible to answer the question posed by the OP. The problem with the Benghazi accusations are not the lack of a plausible motive. The lack of any substantive evidence that the accused behavior actually happened is what dooms the Benghazi accusations to the level of “conspiracy theory.” They did not happen, in other words.
But not because the accusers were unable to conceive a motive.
Here follows the motive explanation. I trust it’s clear that I do not endorse or believe it, but am offering it here because it is what exists as a belief.
Despite repeated requests for increased security made by US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens prior to the attack date, the security at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi was dangerously substandard. There was no motive for this; it was simple incompetence within the State Department.
On September 11, 2012, Stevens was visiting Benghazi when Islamic extremists attacked the outpost. Stevens and his group, lacking proper security, called for help, but the military refused to assist. Motive: the military was paralyzed by lack of authorization from any command authority to assist, because the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi was neither an embassy or an official consulate. Military commanders deferred to the State Department for guidance. However, the State Department had no ready answer; two different State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, each tried to defer a decision to the other. Neither would take responsibility for making a decision. In short, bureaucratic delays caused military assistance to stall. Stevens and others on his staff died during the attack.
In an effort to cover up the poor organization and failure to act on the requests for increased security, the State Department fabricated a motive for the attack, claiming that the attack grew spontaneously out of a protest against the recently translated film “Innocence of Muslims,” an anti-Islam film made in the United States. The State Department’s message, in other words, was “No one could have foreseen this attack, because it was a spontaneous outburst resulting from the film.” But this was a deliberate lie; they knew the film was unconnected to the attack. The motive was to deflect blame from the State Department’s earlier failures.
The overall argument tends to get framed around whether an effective military response could have been generated in sufficient time to make a difference in the evolving tactical situation. This would need to take into account the positioning and capabilities of resources in the area.
Critics of the administration argue that an effective response could have been mounted had action been taken in a prompt manner.
The administration apparently came to a different conclusion.
None of that is explicitly a motive for a “stand down” order. It would explain a lack of action, yes, but not a deliberate order to cease action in the process of being taken.
There are only two plausible reasons for a stand-down order, IMO. One is that someone feared an escalation into some larger field of combat, and decided to take the loss rather then take that risk. The other is that someone feared the possible negative press or imagery that might result. For instance, videos of American troops firing into street mobs and moving down dozens or hundreds of people would be … bad.
With the Factual Answer to the General Question so eloquently provided … let us clarify some minor and trivial misunderstandings …
å] The United States Embassy building for Libya is located in Tripoli, the pre-revolutionary capital of Libya. The Rebels set up shop in Benghazi and so the USA rented a villa in the rich part of town as a temporary embassy until Congress appropriated the money to build an actual embassy building.
ß] The only forces available that could reach this villa in a residential area of Benghazi in time was a flight of AC-130’s. Someone in the military chain-of-command noticed that such an action would violate the UCMJ. We’re not allow to open fire with a dozen M-61 Vulcan Gattling Guns indiscriminately into residential neighborhoods in countries we are at peace with, and the same is true for 4" Howitzers.
ç] Climate research will come to a complete and permanent halt as soon as the temperatures drop by even one hundredth of a degree putting millions upon millions of patriotic Americans out of work.
Now that some of the snark is out of the way, there are two primary reasons given for a “stand down” order:
A military engagement at that time would have gone against Obama’s reelection narrative of terrorism (specifically Al Quada) being “on the run”; and
There was a CIA arms deal happening at the time that the administration didn’t want exposed.
Your general/hypothetical first sentence leads to two absolute statements justifying such an order in the Benghazi case.Uno) Cite proof there WAS any kind of “stand down order.”
Dos) Cite any reasonable proof of your #1 claim beyond “all good Republicans know…”
Tres) Cite for your #2 claim from something other than a conservative blog or equivalent.
The question is basically a political one, and it also requires opinions about what unspecified “folks” might think. It was in no way suitable for General Questions from the outset.
If it had been more precise, such as what exactly identified individuals had said about the matter, there might have been a factual answer. The vague way you have chosen to phrase it there is not.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
While it does not directly prove Smitty’s assertion, can we all accept that there was a CIA outpost in Benghazi (per the House committee report)?
OK, hold on.
1#. “Indiscriminately” - I don’t think such fire support would be indiscriminate; it would be specifically targeted against hostiles on the ground. Would there be civilians killed? Quite possibly, but nobody is talking about spraying the entire neighborhood with artillery fire and leveling it.
2#. Suppose that it were an even higher-level; US official whose life was in danger instead of an ambassador - say, the Secretary of State, or Vice President, etc. And suppose that the AC-130s were the only assets that could respond. Is there any doubt that the military chain of command would say, “Who cares about UCMJ, we’re using the force that is available?” My point being, isn’t this rather flexible rather than the inflexible “We cannot do this because this violates UCMJ, period?”
3) The 1993 Black Hawk Down operation in Mogadishu killed over a thousand Somalis and it took place entirely in Somali residential neighborhoods. If UCMJ is so strict, how did that happen?
“Indiscriminate” is not the word I would use, but the point stands that determining who on the ground were friends, foes, and civilians would have been extremely difficult and with literally any weapons system in the US inventory – to say nothing of what theoretically could have made it to Benghazi in a useful time frame – would have created a very serious clusterfuck. The fundamental problem is that aircraft would have an extremely hard time knowing who to shoot at, and the weapons on an aircraft would probably not be as precise as the Internet Junior Commando Brigade thinks.
For example, outside of the compound there were many armed people. Not all of them were bad guys. Being near the compound + having a gun /= enemy. In fact, we relied on friendly militias to provide security, because there was no real police force in Benghazi. Do you think a Predator drone has the ability to determine from 25,000 feet whether someone is a friendly militia or bad guy militia? No way.
I think you misunderstand what “UCMJ” means in this context. The law of armed conflict requires proportionality and discrimination. You ought to know who you are shooting at, and not use force so excessive that it is disproportionate to the military objective being sought. For example, you can’t drop a 500 pound bomb on two bad guys in a crowd of innocents. And the answer is, yes, that the US military could not have violated the law of armed conflict if a higher-level VIP was on the ground. Of course, this is moot, because every inquiry into the events has found that there was no realistic opportunity to materialize military power into Benghazi over long distances in a relevant time frame, even if those decisions had been made to try to do so.
See the discussion on the law of armed conflict above. Also, the battle of Mogadishu generally involved people using firearms against combatants, not dropping smart bombs in a city hoping we kill the bad guys and not the good guys.
I’m certainly willing to concede the presence of the CIA in pretty much every US installation. But I’d like to see some kind of substantiation that there was some kind of op going on that was worth getting everyone killed rather than interrupt. Smacks of “everbody knows, y’know?”
The OP asks what do people “claim” was the reason. I was providing those claims. None of them are “my” claims. Never said I believed them or that they were accurate.