Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Completely agree they're the best but this also wasn't a Seal mission. It was a security mission not designed to repel this kind of attack. Also, watch the Fox special report on the timeline. It's got a ton of biased reporting but the timeline portion I think was pretty good. Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then: Hacks right  The timeline and official comments suggest they thought the attack was waning and support from Tripoli was arriving soon. All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it. To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force. You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case. Remember 30,000 Benghazi's are reported to have protested the attacks holding pictures of the dead Ambassador and then stormed the headquarters of the Islamist group! Another under reported part of this story (I didn't even see it until today) is that after the attack the government has moved to disarm unofficial militia groups with broad public support. Libya Disbands ?Illegitimate? Militias - By Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker | The Middle East Channel As I've said, there's legitimate questions to be asked if we did enough to keep our people safe. Even Obama has admitted mistakes were made. This should be the focus of review and changes made to personnel or policy where appropriate, but not the petty election witch hunt you so dream of undermining the Commander and Chief. -spence |
"You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case."
OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.
"All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it"
It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.
"To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force."
Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.
Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.
You have no knowledge to back up anything you say. you make up liberal apologist jibberish as you go along, anything to avoid making Obama look culpable for his blunders.