From the looks of this, Woods and Doherty would have been subject to the UCMJ so the order would have come from the Pentagon. panetta...or dempsey.
Did State Department Rules of Engagement Cause the Deaths of the SEAL’s in Benghazi?
Posted: September 15, 2012 | Author: Wally Zimolong, Esq.
excerpt:
The exact rules of engagement for State Department private military contractors are classified and even when they are the exact rules are somewhat gray. We do know that in 2007, after criticism and incidents involving private military contractors in Iraq, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) was amended to bring private military contractors within the purview of UCMJ. Accordingly, private military contractors, like Doherty and Woods, could be charged with war crimes and prosecuted in US federal courts for any wrong doing committed while operating in Libya as private contractors. Moreover, while the exact State Department Rules of Engagement for private military contractors operating Libya are classified, according to a Marine Corp statement shortly after the September 11, 2012 Benghazi incident, we do know that the State Department’s rules prevented Marines from operating either at the Tripoli embassy or Benghazi consulate. Moreover, we know that there are reports that the Ambassador in Cairo prohibited Marines from carrying live ammunition within the embassy compound. Finally, we know from Marcus Lutrell’s book ‘Lone Survivor’ that the rules of engagement for even active duty military are not always clear and the threat of prosecution under the UCMJ constantly hangs over the heads of operators.
With this as a backdrop, we are left to wonder whether State Department rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi. Given that the State Department prohibited Marines from being on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi and the Ambassador to Egypt’s prohibition on Marines carrying live rounds in Cairo, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the rules of engagement that Doherty and Woods were operating under were restrictive. Indeed, it is important to understand what Doherty’s and Wood’s role was in Libya. Doherty and Woods were not contracted to provide security to the Benghazi consulate. Rather, reports indicate that they were operating as part of a team contracted by the State Department to seek out and destroy shoulder fired surface to air missiles in the hands of Libyan militias. If State Department Rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi or if there were no rules of engagement for the situation they faced, then they may have been prevented from taking action early in the battle which could have changed its outcome.
When the perimeter was breached did the State Department’s rules of engagement require them to rely on the Libyan security forces to repel the initial attackers rather than permitting them to react immediately to counter the breach? Did the State Department rules of engagement – and the ultimate threat of prosecution under the UCMJ – cause them to make decision against their better trained combat judgment? Unfortunately, given the lack of reports of EKA’s and circumstantial evidence gleaned from the State Department’s position Marine security teams, it is certainly reasonable to assume the answer to both is yes.
My hope is that when the final story is told, it will show that Doherty and Woods went down fighting and saved the lives of the 17 people that were rescued from the Benghazi consulate. Early reports indicated that Ambassador Stevens was killed along with “three Marines.” Clearly, Doherty, Woods, and Sean Smith had done something that would have led to the conclusion that they were Marines. Perhaps they fought off the much larger forces and shuttled the 17 to safety and formed a perimeter (along with Sean Smith who with his military background would at least be proficient in small arms tactics) around Ambassador Stevens who refused to leave until his staff had safely escaped the main compound. Perhaps both were part of a larger team of ex-special operators that indeed caused a significant number of EKA’s that has been kept quite for obvious diplomatic reasons.
That is what I hope. Until, then given the State Department’s record thus far, the question must be asked “did the State Department rules of engagement cause their deaths?”
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Benghazi Index