Do we know if there were any ROE’s in effect that would have required Obama’s input in order for the contingency plans to be carried out?
Seems to me like there were 2 kinds of refusals:
1. the refusal to allow assets to be present in Libya, in the event that they would be useful. All the excuses for this fail, though, because drones DID fly into Libyan airspace, and they could just as easily have been armed as not. As I understand it, the protocol is to send assets immediately so all options are available, and then as more info comes in adjust the contingency plan accordingly. But even though there was no problem with crossing into Libyan airspace (as evidenced by the drones being sent), the normal protocol of making assets available was refused by Panetta if not Obama - and yet (if the rumors are true) Africom leader Ham defied orders.
2. the refusal to let already-available assets fire on already-marked targets in order to save those in the CIA annex, including the 2 former SEALs. That is where it seems to me like Obama must have given a standing order that they were not to engage to save those at risk.
Again, I hope somebody corrects me if I’m misunderstanding anything.
Asking what Rules of Engagement were in place for ground and airborne asstes in the Benghazi area on September 11 2012 would be an excellent question for SECDEF. Likely, it was not considered any sort of a free fire zone, so requests to deploy weapons from any airborne assets would have been required.