More breaking news on Libya, about how help was denied

[Jim in CT]

God Bless Foxnews, the only network willing to do their jobs on this story.

Unfreakinbelievable.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News

WHY ISN'T THIS A BIGGER STORY.

Stevens and others ask for more security, and they are denied. When it turns out thet were justified in asking for more security, their pleas for help go unanswered?

Unfreakinbelievable.

"A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli"

Spence?

How does this not impact the election? When the f*ck is Obama going to explain his side of the story?

[PRBuzz]

Hillary did it!

[Jim in CT]

"Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty...were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe..."

Spence?

[Bronko]

Getting uglier by the hour.

[Jackbass]

WTF if it were my kid on the ground requesting support. Being destroyed by these militants. I would want criminal charges brought up. We have the most powerful military on the planet with the ability to put a missile in a bedroom window and we allow this to happen.

I understand there are ramifications to engaging in a foreign country. But Libya really? We have zero problem targeting locations in Syria with drones (killing plenty of innocents) yet when a target is painted that poses a threat to citizens in hostile territory light it up! If that mortar location had been blown to smithereens do you think that would have shown the militants we were serious about protecting out people. Instead we stand down and allow our people to die with out help. And they watched it happen. This is criminal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Like I've said multiple times, to think that the military wasn't calculating our options is pretty silly.

Here's more information on the SecDef discussion from yesterday's NYTimes. The Fox story only pasted one snippet.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

“There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here,” Mr. Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

As a result, Mr. Panetta said, he and two top commanders “felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” The commanders are Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Carter F. Ham of Africa Command, which oversees American military operations in Africa, including Libya.

Mr. Panetta was at the White House for a regular meeting on the afternoon of Sept. 11 as the first reports of the attack unfolded, an American official said. By that evening Mr. Panetta had consulted with General Dempsey and General Ham and had ordered a number of American military forces in the region to move closer to Libya.

Defense officials say they did not receive a request for military support from the State Department as the attack unfolded.

In response to Mr. Panetta’s decision, a small Special Operations “strike force” team moved from Central Europe to the Sigonella Air Base in Sicily while two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean were moved off the Libyan coast. A rapid-reaction team of elite Marines left Rota, Spain, and arrived to protect the American Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the next day.

But a senior military official said that uncertainty about what was happening on the ground in Libya delayed the decision about where to send the Special Operations forces until about 9 p.m. in Washington, or 3 a.m. on Sept. 12, in Libya.

Ultimately, the decision relayed from the military’s Joint Staff in Washington was “to get close but not into Libya,” the official said. The task force then deployed over the next 24 hours to Sigonella, which is about an hour by plane from Benghazi. But by that time the shooting was over and the Americans were eventually evacuated.

As Mr. Panetta told reporters on Thursday, “This happened within a few hours, and it was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Republicans, in the meantime, continue to question the Obama administration about its handling of an event that has become a source of sharp debate in the presidential campaign.

On Thursday, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio released a letter asking the president to answer a number of questions about Libya publicly, including what military options he had been offered or had considered during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

Mr. Boehner also said in his letter that “information now in the public domain contradicts how you and senior administration officials consistently described the cause and nature of the terrorist attack in the day and weeks immediately following.”

Why, Mr. Boehner asked, “did the administration fail to account for facts that were known at the time?”

Mr. Boehner sent his letter after a series of three leaked e-mails sent by State Department officials shortly after the attack began — including one that alerted the White House Situation Room that a militant group had claimed responsibility for it — stirred new debate on Wednesday about the Obama administration’s shifting accounts.

The first e-mail, sent about a half-hour after the assault began, said the State Department’s regional security officer in Tripoli had reported that the mission in Benghazi was under attack, and that “20 armed people fired shots.” A second said the firing at the mission had stopped. In the third, the embassy in Tripoli reported that a local militant group, Ansar al-Shariah, had claimed responsibility through postings on Facebook and Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/wo...-benghazi.html

We're not sure if Obama even had to make a call here, but if your Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman and head of Africa Command all think it's too risky based on available information what would you do?

Most of the information around the attack appears to have been very cloudy and the situation quite confusing. If anything has come to light recently it's that a lot of thinking and action was going on while the attack unfolded. Nobody was sitting on their hands.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

if your Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman and head of Africa Command all think it's too risky based on available information what would you do?

-spence

The guys on the ground, the guys literally on the ground, asked for permission to go in and help, and were told to 'stand down'.

If Americans are under fire, and guys RIGHT THERE are asking to go help, and the SecDef (5 thousand miles away) says 'no', you want to know what I do? I fire Panetta, and look into bringing charges against him.

This was a group of 20 attackers. TWENTY.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When the f*ck is Obama going to explain his side of the story?

Won't be answered until after Nov 7th for sure.

Nothing holding him back from coming out today and explaining his role in
it, if he chose.

[RIJIMMY]

Spence, do you have to read farther than the first sentence?

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

Christ, an embassy is our territory? These were our people!
Isnt it ALWAYS risky to deploy troops??????????????????????????????????

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Christ, an embassy is our territory? These were our people!
Isnt it ALWAYS risky to deploy troops??????????????????????????????????

Jimmy, the attack didn't happen at the embassy (Tripoli) it was a Consulate (i.e. branch office) in Benghazi.

I also don't believe US Embassy's or Consulates are legally considered US soil unless specifically designated by a treaty.

I'm sure there's always risk of deploying troops -- hell there's risk to run a drill -- but that doesn't mean there's an acceptable risk. Top military brass have the leadership experience of Fortune 100 CEO's, in fact probably better.

This event played out very fast and with little good information. Poor judgement could have cost many more US lives.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This event played out very fast and with little good information. -spence

8+ hours, with drones providing real-time info, and reports from our guys on the ground reporting real-time info.

Spence, 4 Americans were slaughtered.

Have you no shame, when it comes to defending Obama? Have you no shame? You're not better than that? Are you that infatuated?

[buckman]

I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants
If we can't send in a drone we don't go
We have an administration that can't think on its feet and has to way the personal political fallout in every move.
Obama first,,,,everything else after.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants
If we can't send in a drone we don't go
We have an administration that can't think on its feet and has to way the personal political fallout in every move.
Obama first,,,,everything else after.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants"

You said it before i could.

The drones over the compound showed approximately TWENTY attackers. Twenty. This was not the Battle Of Thermopayle.

Spence, if Obama's military advisors need 2 weeks to figure out how to defeat 20 barbarians, then I think they need to be replaced.

2 Navy SEALS survived the attack for 7 hours, for Christ's sakes. 15 or 20 more special forces soldiers, and it's a turkey shoot.

Spence, you don't put people in harm's way and refuse to help them. You just don't, not if you have any honor. Panetta says you don't send soldiers in until you know exactly what's going on? Bullsh*t. Tell that to the families of the heroic former SEALs who ignored orders to stand down, and instead ran one mile to the consulate that was being attacked.

The Obama administration stood their with their hands in their pockets, because of 20 barbarians who probably couldn't scratch their names in the dirt with a stick. Even Jimmy Carter wasn't that impotent. Obama was probably looking on the Harvard Law Review for the appropriate response, while those guys were literally fighting for their lives.

UNFREKINBELIEVABLE.

[Bronko]

We've come a loooooooooooooong way from a spontaneous reaction to a Muslim parody haven't we? What are some of the disqualifiers we have heard as the truth started to leak out?

Lack of information as to what was going on real time?
Military help unable to reach the area in time?
Not a clear picture as to the events transpiring?

What we now know:

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

This be gettin' messy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

We've come a loooooooooooooong way from a spontaneous reaction to a Muslim parody haven't we? What are some of the disqualifiers we have heard as the truth started to leak out?

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

I wish our response could have been as organized
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

OK. Have you seen any evidence that it was in response to a video? Other than the word of your man-crush?

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

Ok so Ansar Al Sharia just happened to be driving by the Consulate saw a protest about a YouTube video and said hey " We have a bunch of Guns Mortars and stuff" lets blow the place up and kill the Americans inside. Cripes what the hell else do militant Jihadists do for fun on a Tuesday Night?

There is a ton of rationalizing going on trying to support Obamas position on this no matter how you slice it. Hiding the nature of the attack for two weeks is crap! Leaving those guys out there to die is crap!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

This gets better and better...

Atthe funeral for one of the killed former SEALS...according to the kid's father, Biden came up to him and said "'did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"

Nice.

[spence]

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons.

They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo. There still to my knowledge is no evidence the attack was planned in advance.

As for the CIA, we really don't know the full transcript of what went on. The CIA dispatcher could have felt there was significant risk and they were walking into a trap.

Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons.

They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo. There still to my knowledge is no evidence the attack was planned in advance.

As for the CIA, we really don't know the full transcript of what went on. The CIA dispatcher could have felt there was significant risk and they were walking into a trap.

Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...

-spence

"They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo."

Based on WHAT? Please share this evidence.

"Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...'

Kind of like Obama loking into charges against CIA officers for waterboarding, even though they had letters from the Justice Dept saying that waterboarding was legal?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Based on WHAT? Please share this evidence.

The interviews with attackers saying they saw the protests in Cairo and decided to attack the consulate. Read up Jim.

Kind of like Obama loking into charges against CIA officers for waterboarding, even though they had letters from the Justice Dept saying that waterboarding was legal?

Hey bizzaro world alternate history guy...

1) Obama stated clearly there would be no charges against CIA officers for torture and none have been brought

2) The authors of the letters from DOJ (advising the technique was legal) were found by the DOJ's own internal review board of professional misconduct in their actions.

-spence

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

The interviews with attackers saying they saw the protests in Cairo and decided to attack the consulate. Read up Jim

-spence

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Spence has reached an all time low. Now he is taking the word of "interviews with attackers" over the words and emails of americans staring imminent death in the face as the savages surrounded the compound.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He gets his info, and bases his opinions upon, what the terrorists say. Because it never occurred to Spence that a terrorist might lie.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons...

-spence

Foxnews is sayong 20. Let's assume it's 40. Two Nave SEALs held them off for 7 hours. Why? Because we are much better at this than they are. I was in the conventional forces, and we knew that in a toe-to-toe fight, 2-1 or 3-1 odds were no big deal. For Special Forces, like the guys that Obama's team refused to send in, odds of 5-1 or 6-2 are no sweat. These guys just are not human, especially in a chaotic situation.

Spence, why don't you stick to things you know something about, like...like...well, not infantry tactics.

Panetta had 7 hours to put together a plan to defeat a couple dozen untrained barbarians. And he couldn't pull it off.

At an absolute minimum, you at least deploy some troops in choppers, and have them hold a few miles out, while you try to figure out if you can send them in. That way, once you getthje green light, they are 2 minutes out. If the forces are an hour away, it makes zero tactical sense to leave themthat far out. They could have been hovering the ocean (Benghazi is on the coast), it's not like they'd have to wait over enemy-occupied territory.

I don't get it.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Foxnews is sayong 20. Let's assume it's 40. Two Nave SEALs held them off for 7 hours. Why? Because we are much better at this than they are. I was in the conventional forces, and we knew that in a toe-to-toe fight, 2-1 or 3-1 odds were no big deal. For Special Forces, like the guys that Obama's team refused to send in, odds of 5-1 or 6-2 are no sweat. These guys just are not human, especially in a chaotic situation.

So tell us Jim, how much time did you spend in the middle east? You're suddenly the expert on urban combat there.

Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located.

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

So tell us Jim, how much time did you spend in the middle east? You're suddenly the expert on urban combat there.

You haven't been paying much attention have you?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

So tell us Jim, how much time did you spend in the middle east? You're suddenly the expert on urban combat there.

Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located.

"how much time did you spend in the middle east? "

More than the bastards who told the special forces guys to stand down. I'm not Audie Murphy. But I spent time there with the USMC. Unlike Spence, i don't make stuff up as I go along, just to make my guy look good.

Even if I had never served, I know that you don't send a kid into harm's way, and then turn a deaf ear when he asks for help while fighting for his life. Anyone wih a soul knows that.

Why would anyone in his right mind take an embassy post in a dangerous place now? And how about the doctor who told us where Bin Laden is, we let the Pakistanis throw him in jail, for Christ's sake? Why would anyone in Pakistan risk his neck to help us now?

What's wrong with Obama? What the hell are we turning into? We betray those risking it all to help us. Guys like Spence are taking the terrorists' word that the video started this.

Sad. I sure as hell don't get it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Foxnews is sayong 20. Let's assume it's 40. Two Nave SEALs held them off for 7 hours. Why? Because we are much better at this than they are. I was in the conventional forces, and we knew that in a toe-to-toe fight, 2-1 or 3-1 odds were no big deal. For Special Forces, like the guys that Obama's team refused to send in, odds of 5-1 or 6-2 are no sweat. These guys just are not human, especially in a chaotic situation.

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.

Spence, why don't you stick to things you know something about, like...like...well, not infantry tactics.

Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then:

General Martin Dempsey

He received a commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. As a company-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment as the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He then commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse, Germany.[5]
In June 2003, then Brigadier General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to command V Corps. Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United States Army.[6]
It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell to Sunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada Sadr built their strength and rose up against American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. General Dempsey has been described by Thomas Ricks in his book "Fiasco": "In the capital itself, the 1st Armored Division, after Sanchez assumed control of V Corps, was led by Gen. Martin Dempsey, was generally seen as handling a difficult (and inherited) job well, under the global spotlight of Baghdad."
On March 27, 2007, Dempsey was promoted from commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, to be reappointed as a lieutenant general and assigned as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.
On March 11, 2008, Dempsey's commander, Admiral William J. Fallon, retired from active service. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accepted this as effective on March 31. Dempsey took over command as acting commander CENTCOM.
On March 13, 2008, Dempsey was confirmed by the United States Senate as Commander, Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe.[7]
On December 8, 2008, Dempsey took command of United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.[8]
On January 6, 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he would nominate General Dempsey to succeed General George Casey as the Army Chief of Staff.[9]
On February 8, 2011, Gates announced that President Barack Obama nominated Dempsey to be the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.[10]
On March 3, 2011, Dempsey testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services for reappointment to the grade of general and to be the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.[11]
On March 15, 2011, the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services affirmatively reported Dempsey's nomination to serve as the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the floor of the Senate.[12] On March 16, 2011, the Senate confirmed Dempsey's nomination by unanimous consent.[13]
On April 11, 2011, Dempsey was officially sworn in as 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army at a ceremony at Fort Myer.
With Admiral Mike Mullen set to retire as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2011, President Obama needed to select his replacement. The Vice-Chairman, Marine General James Cartwright, who was initially believed to be the front runner for the job, had fallen out of favor among senior officials in the Defense Department. Obama administration officials revealed on May 26, 2011, that the President would nominate Dempsey to the post of Chairman.[14] In August 2011 General Dempsey was confirmed by unanimous consent to succeed Admiral Mike Mullen as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He was officially sworn in as 18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2011, succeeding Admiral Michael Mullen.

General Ham

Ham served as an enlisted Infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division before attending John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. He was commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant through the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Army ROTC) in the Infantry as a Distinguished Military Graduate in 1976. He later received his master's degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island as well as graduating from several military schools including the Infantry Officer Basic Course, the Armor Officer Advanced Course, the College of Naval Command and Staff of the U.S. Naval War College and the U.S. Air Force Air War College. He is a member of the John Carroll University ROTC Hall of Fame. He and his wife, Christi, are both John Carroll University graduates.
Ham's early assignments included service at Fort Knox, Kentucky and tours of duty in Italy and Germany. After graduating from the Armor Officers Advanced Course, he was a Recruiting Area Commander in Lima, Ohio. In 1984, he served with a joint service unit in support of the Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
From 1984 until 1989, Ham served as Assistant Inspector General, then as Battalion S-3 and Executive Officer with the Opposing Force at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. He attended the College of Naval Command and Staff, graduating with distinction in 1990, and was then assigned to the US Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia.
He served a tour as an advisor with a Saudi Arabian National Guard Brigade in Riyadh then returned to Fort Benning, where he was the executive officer for the Infantry School. Ham commanded the 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry in Vilseck, Germany including a six month tour with the United Nations Protection Forces in the Republic of Macedonia. Following battalion command, he was the Senior Observer/Controller of the Timberwolf Team at the Combat Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany.
He graduated from the Air War College in 1997 then returned to Germany where he served as G-3, then Chief of Staff, 1st Infantry Division. From 1999 to 2001 he commanded the 29th Infantry Regiment at Fort Benning, then served as Deputy Director, J-8, United States Central Command in Tampa, Florida and Qatar. Ham was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General for Training and Readiness, I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash. in August 2003. In January 2004, he assumed command of Multinational Brigade (Task Force Olympia) – North in Mosul, Iraq serving there until February 2005. During his time in Iraq General Ham suffered Posttraumatic stress disorder, caused from attending the aftermath of a suicide bombing. He later sought treatment for his condition and publicly encouraged other soldiers to do the same.
Returning from Iraq, General Ham served as the Deputy Director for Regional Operations, J-3, on The Joint Staff. General Ham assumed command of the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas in August 2006 and served as the Commanding General until July 2007, returning to The Joint Staff as Director for Operations, J-3. On August 28, 2008, General Ham became the 34th Commander of the United States Army Europe headquartered at Campbell Barracks, Heidelberg, Germany.
The United States Senate, in November 2010, confirmed General Ham’s nomination to become the next Commander of U.S. Africa Command, headquartered at Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany.[2] He assumed the post on March 8, 2011.
General Ham is in command of US forces enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone, along with Admiral Samuel J. Locklear.[citation needed] Described as "in charge of the coalition effort", General Ham on March 21, 2011 "said there would be coalition airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi’s mobile air defenses and that some 80 sorties – only half of them by the United States – had been flown on Monday."[3] Admiral Locklear, aboard the flagship Mount Whitney, has tactical command of the Operation Odyssey Dawn joint taskforce.[4] "General Ham also said he had “full authority” to attack the regime’s forces if they refused to comply with President Obama’s demands that they pull back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya," according to one report. Earlier, he said that the United States was not working with the Libyan rebels. “Our mission is not to support any opposition forces,” Ham said by video feed to the Pentagon from his headquarters in Stuttgart.[3]
General Ham has stated (in an online Washington Post article by Greg Miller and Craig Whitlock, posted on October 1, 2012) that, as a result of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb's overtaking and capturing more territory in Mali in Africa, and possessing arms from Libya after the Libyan civil war which overthrew Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, there is the possibility of the U.S. assisting (not leading) counterterror operations done by other countries. A more radical step would be the use of drones.[5]

Hacks right

At an absolute minimum, you at least deploy some troops in choppers, and have them hold a few miles out, while you try to figure out if you can send them in. That way, once you getthje green light, they are 2 minutes out. If the forces are an hour away, it makes zero tactical sense to leave themthat far out. They could have been hovering the ocean (Benghazi is on the coast), it's not like they'd have to wait over enemy-occupied territory.

I don't get it.

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