Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them? The 7 hour timeline is misleading. It wasn't a sustained attack on a single location, but rather a confused situation across buildings spaced far apart. While there certainly was growing concern about extremist influence in the area there doesn't appear to be much intel an attack was preplanned. The local people protested the attack and stormed the extremists HQ just days after. The most likely scenario appears to be that a problem was brewing, but the moment accelerated to conflict before our system had responded. i.e. it's not all about the video, but to some degree it is. -spence
|
"do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them? "
We did have military in a position to defend, and we didn't send them.
"but rather a confused situation "
The Situation Room knew of the attack very early on. They didn't know every detail early on, but they knew there were 20 armed terrorists in the compound, they knew there was a viscous firefight, and they knew that Ambassador Stevens was locked in a safe room, waiting for help that would never come. The fact is, we could have sent rreinforcements before the attack ended (maybe not in time to save anyone). But we didn't. Obama will not discuss why, until after the election. We sent a drone over the embassy to take pictures. That drone came from an American base somewhere, and somewhere on that base, are soldiers with guns who could have gone in after the drone showed what was happening.
Priorities.
Spence, if you want to provide us with any other keen insights into military capabilities and infantry tactics, please share them with us. Don't hoard all that knowledge to yourself.