navy seals
 

just read 2 x navy seals were providing security for embassy and were 2 of the four killed.may they rip.hopefully they took out a few of the attackers before they were killed.makes you wonder again about out gov not supplying security all over especially on 9/11.we send in the marines after its all over.great leadership to the people in washington.

X2

The actual security situation doesn't seem to have been reported. I might guess that they were trying to keep a low profile...

-spence

Spence, the State Department lost track of the ambassador to Libya for 8 hours. Sort of implies that there wasn't a ton of security.

I don't like Monday-morning quarterbacking, nor am I a fan of thoughtless, automatic defenses of the current administration.

Obama and Clinton have tried, for almost 4 years, a much softer tone in the Middle East. It. Has. Not. Worked.

If we have embassies in these countries, you need a full barrack of Marines like we had in Beirut. Obviously, even that isn't a guarantee of safety.

Obama thought he could go to Cairo in 2009, apologize for all of our faults, stop using the phrase "war on terror", give a greeting in the Islamic tongue, and make these people hate us less. That's inarguably what he thought. This is what you get from a clueless ideologue who just doesn't get real life. There are ideas that sound swell in the Harvard faculty room, that just don't work in the real world. Maybe we should think about electing a president who has both vision and an understanding of reality.

Obama is not responsible for the jihad. But in my opinion, he needs to acquire a better appreciation for what kind of threat it really is, and a better appreciation of how fanatical and dangerous the jihadists are.

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, it's time to wake up and smell the global jihad | Fox News

I'm doing neither, just posed a rational question. Why do you have such a difficult time dealing with rationality?

What would "working" look like?

Didn't we lose 241 Marines through that strategy?

The primary security at the consulate was being provided by Libyan troops, it's not like the place was undefended. Given the situation it's quite reasonable to think keeping a lower profile would be a sensible thing to do. This appears to have been a calculated terrorist attack that exploited a weak point.

-spence

Whew, thank god you said that.

I think Obama has a pretty sound understanding of the threat, in fact, under his leadership the military has killed a heck of a lot of terrorists.

The difference is I believe, that Obama has drawn a less divisive line in the sand in order to deal with massive changes to the Islamic world currently underway. The focus is to eliminate the real terrorist leadership and more to contain the mid-level violence that's got to play itself out as these nations learn how to not be dictatorships. The focus also has been to avoid getting the US entangled in more confrontations we simply can't afford.

It's not like the birth of the US was a straightforward event.

Too hard a line and the covered pot will boil over and make a mess, sometimes it's better to leave the lid cracked a little.

-spence

Can't this go in the political forum or Scuppers??? :smash: We do have to have someplace where we can hide from the madness!!!!

I was just thinking the same thing myself. The difference is, I don't have to stop at just thinking---I can act.

Thanks,

-spence

"What would "working" look like?"

You really don't know? How about fewer living jihadists that want to kill Americans.

"Didn't we lose 241 Marines through that strategy?"

Yes we did, which is exactly why I said that even that doesn't guarantee safety. But it helps. Reagan said it best..."peace through strength".

"The primary security at the consulate was being provided by Libyan troops..."

First you said that security details were not disclosed. Now, you are opining on the details. Were those details released between the time of your last post and this post?

Even if that's true, great! Let's put the lives of Americans in the hands of those who are in kahoots with the jihadists. I'm sure that's of great comfort to the family of the murdered (and raped, from what I understand) ambassador.

"Given the situation it's quite reasonable to think keeping a lower profile would be a sensible thing to do. "

OK, so now you're a security tactical expert. Spence, what 'situation' is that, exactly? Keeping a low profile is preferable when you are trying to not draw attention to yourself. In this case, everyone in the world knows that the American abmassador can be found at the American embassy, that's not classified information. Therefore, how is the ambassador safer with a 'low profile', than he would be with a company of Marines between him and the jihadists?

"I think Obama has a pretty sound understanding of the threat"

Spence thinks Obama is doing an aces job, I'm shocked...

"under his leadership the military has killed a heck of a lot of terrorists."

True, and I've always given him credit for that. He has also done a lot to appease these people, and in the process, he projects weakness. I have seen these people Spence, where I gather you have not. They are emboldened by Obama's public softening of the rhetoric, they are not swayed by it.

"Obama has drawn a less divisive line in the sand in order to deal with massive changes to the Islamic world currently underway"

I agree that Obama's intent is to be less divisive. That doesn't make the jihadists hate us any less. It doesn't get us more coopeeration from our allies. It's a perfect example of an idea that sounds great in the Harvard faculty room ("hey, if we show these people that we understand them better than Bush did, they won't hate us as much!"), but bears no fruit in the real world.

Spence, being "less divisive" is a great conflict resolution approach that works well in many situations. It accomplishes exactly nothing in the war against Islamic jihadists.

These people strap explosive-jammed backpacks on the backs of neighbors with Down Syndrome, and send them to crowded makets to kill as many innocent people as possible. You don't reason with these people. You kill them, or you accept the blood they shed.

Here's what our Secretary State had to say o fthe attacks...

"
“I asked myself—how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

Clueless. Absolutely, totally, utterly clueless about the single greatest national security threat we face. After serving as first lady for 2 terms (that included several terrorist attacks), as US Senator, and amazingly as Sec State, it's unhtinkable to her that jihadists want to kill Americans, despite the fact she and Obama extended an olive branch.

Given her story about the time when she landed at an airport somewhere and she had to DIVE! into an armored military vehicle because of incoming sniper fire, you'd think she'd understand violence better . Oh wait, she admitted making that whole thing up after video of her arrival surfaced...

Kind of off topic but I just finished "No Easy Day." It was a great read if your into SEAL books.

Quite interesting the response the book got from the DoD, especially the dress down on Seals not acting like Seals.

-spence

they lost track of Stevens because he was in the building that was on fire after being hit be an rpg trying to get staff out. The ex-Navy Seals were proud men.