One tough heartless decision they made that I agree with:
I think it was a mistake for ANYONE at the annex to drive over to the Consulate and get involved in the gun battle, there.
Brave, yep..! But smart? Nope —the stuff going on at the annex was FAR more sensitive than the biz typically being done at the consulate, and annex/Consulate traffic would LEAD ATTACKERS TO THE ANNEX.
After they did that, the attack count went from one to two, the KIA went from two to four, and we lost a whole CIA base. And it’s likely that ALL Libyans helping us to recover MANPADS in Libya now fear their names were compromised and now they won’t work with us.
Uh...the SEALS were brave as heck but in fact that was a bad decision, from an intel perspective.
The huge political error was just sitting around and sending NO AIR SUPPORT —they were afraid of a Blackhawk Down/Desert One right before a Prez election.
I think it was a mistake for ANYONE at the annex to drive over to the Consulate and get involved in the gun battle, there."
I agree and I would include any other additional forces that had no overwhelming ability.
Hmmm not 1 but 2 armed drones overhead and oh yea, one these also
(New) AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2950634/posts
Seals had lasers on the terrorists and asked to bring the rain. DC said stand down. let ‘em die.
“Uh...the SEALS were brave as heck but in fact that was a bad decision, from an intel perspective.”
Not when SOP is to get them suport ASAP and they knew that. Obama needs to be IMPEACHED!
That the top of the administration was “afraid” does not square with their prior actions.
They sent men into harms way for the UBL kill.
Also, it makes no sense because the team and Ambassador would be facing only one of two outcomes: dying or being taken hostage if nothing was done to save them. Both of these outcomes would be just as bad as trying to save them and failing. Actually, it would be infinitely better from every perspective to be able to say every attempt was made to save them as opposed to sayig no attempt was made.
There is no excuse possible for not trying to save them, since the situation was already one of a dying team. Doing something offered a chance of success, doing nothing offered only death or hostage crisis.
Never would a rational administration say, well, let them die or be taken hostage, we don’t want to risk losing more people.
Are you saying that attempting to rescue the Ambassador was secondary to protecting government secrets? In other words secrets trump lives. What if they had saved the life of the Ambassador, would your view be the same?
Which is more sensitive, the info at the Annex or the HumInt from a seasoned US Ambassador who had just had discussions with a Turkish envoy when Syria and Al Qaeda are primary adversaries in the region?
The Annex wasn’t being attacked at the time and had more security.
The personal guard of the Ambassador was in direct comm requesting emergency support during a several hour attack.
Of all resources in the region, which person is to be guarded the most? It’s the Ambassador being attacked directly on US soil,...an act of war.