Skip to comments.Panetta Says Risk Impeded Deployment to Benghazi (Admin has painted itself into a corner)
Posted on 10/28/2012 9:11:36 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The "Blackhawk Down" scenario (in 10/93) largely occurred in the first place because the civilian leadership failed to listen to the recommendations of the commanders on the ground. If the administration wanted to truly avoid a "Blackhawk Down" scenario, they would have applied the lessons learned, instead of repeating them.
Protecting Americans is not optimal. FUBO!
If the New York Times believed this rubbish they would not have needed to bury it on page A7:
“A version of this article appeared in print on October 26, 2012, on page A7 of the New York edition with the headline: Panetta Says Risk Impeded Deployment To Benghazi.”
A7 tells you the NYT is scared of this story. They might as well have titled it:
“Serious Journalists Say Benghazi is Not an Issue.”
Risk aversion has been the singular characteristic of military policy since at least Mogadishu and arguably since our withdrawal from Vietnam.This is the argument Panetta is hoping everyone will have, though. He is hoping that his comments will now get everyone on the conservative side up in a tizzy saying "Damn the risk, we should have done something!" and the liberal side in a counter argument consistent with their historical dove-like posture. But this argument is a distraction. Panetta has admitted that either they knew it was a sophisticated attack or they were not sure that it was not a sophisticated attack. If that is the case, then they CANNOT come out three days later and say for the next two weeks that they know what caused it and it is a video that sparked a spontaneous demonstration!
Let’s not forget that Gerald Ford sent Marines in to rescue the civilians of the hijacked merchant ship MAYAGUEZ back in 1975.
We lost a lot of men that day, and had to abandon three marines who were later executed by the Khmer Rouge, but at least Ford DID SOMETHING! Obama did nothing.
Then there was Jimmy Carter’s over planned but under thought out plan to rescue the Iranian hostages which was a massive failure.
It wasn't too risky for armed drones or C-130 gunships. The only real risk was collateral damage to innocent Libya citizens and the impact it would have on bilateral relations.
For most of us, the security of Americans under Obama's command outweighed any other perceived risks. There were 30 American lives at stake. Panetta is full of crap and he couldn't make the final decision anyway.
So it was even too risky for Woods, who was only a mile away, to help them?
The SecDef must not be sleeping well at night and is avoiding looking in the mirror. Not a pretty picture
They have no conscience. I’m sure that they sleep very well.
I found this great article which details how the consulate staff came under attack, how they were fighting for their lives, and details when Woods and his team showed up to help evacuate the consulate.
All of the information provided jives with the details now emerging from FOXNews.
Unfortunately failure to send correct assets is and equal politician flaw. My son was in Gulf War I, in Saudi Arabia a week after the Kuwait invasion by SH. He was there 8 months and took part in the assault into Iraq. In December 2002 I asked him how many troops he felt should be sent in by Bush. He said 450,000. At the time Shinsecki was in the process of being fired for arguing we should have over 300,000. Then after a year of a big mess in Iraq, Bremmer said we should have had 1/2 million. Siiigh!!
Now that my son is in Afghanistan AGAIN (spent 8 months there in 2006), I am really pixxed that we didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan instead of the Iraq side trip.
All politicians have their own agenda. We know Obama’s, but I fear that Romney is too eager to bloody the nose of Russia (”our number one enemy”) and Iran. My son has two years to go on his 20, and I pray he makes it out in one piece.
I also favor keeping a strong military, but while I worry about what some demobilization will do to employment figures, a also worry about what political overspending will do to the economy and paying down the debt. To say that I am between Iraq and a hard place is an understandment.
He previously said they didn’t have real-time assessment to determine whether to go in or not. Now he’s saying the risk was too great. Which is it Leon??? You knew, or you didn’t know? Or you knew, and chose to ignore? My bets on the last option.
The mortar had been targeted. A laser guided bomb would have wiped out most of the attack.
Additional troops could have been brought in after the perimeter of the consulate had been cleared of attackers by multiple sorties.
I know the capabilities of our Air Force pilots. I served with them for four years in Germany.
“Understandment” wow, a Bushism, I meant understatement. ;-)
You should vote for Obama then.
Oh yeah. It’s all about ‘risk assessment’.. something the voters never had the benefit of in 2008 when it comes to how the media vetted&covered OBama.
Leon, you been around awhile.. maybe that’s the problem.
Ever notice how ol’ lieberals really mess things up on a regular basis? genetic? hmmmm..
sad, good people died becuz others didn’t think they were ‘worth the risk’. telling.. very telling.
In essence, this puts our consulates in greater danger. It signals al-qaeda, they can attack in similar circumstances and the U. S. will not respond.
It is a truly dangerous signal. Lives will be lost because of it.
For most of us, the security of Americans under Obama's command outweighed any other perceived risks. There were 30 American lives at stake.This is the reaction the White House hopes you will have. Stop falling for it. Keep your eye on the ball: Panetta saying is a defacto admission that the Adminstration lied to the American people and the world starting 3 days later and for two weeks.
Kinda hard to convince me that they don’t know what is happening on the ground when they have a live video feed from a predator, also live video from the embassy cameras, and the spot it being circled by an AC130 Spector giving them live black and white feed.
I mean, How much data do you have to have to understand the embassy is under attack!
How much risk would it have been to the Spectre to take out the Mortars that was lazer targeted for them?
Just like the integrity of this President and his staff... zero.
They said they would move heaven and earth to kill bin Laden, but wouldn’t lift a finger to save our Ambassador and contractors.
Of course they can, and they did. It's all lies of course, but governance by lying has been the hallmark of this Administration. In this case, they don't care if the truth comes out so long as it occurs after Election Day. The walls are crumbling, but they still have Hurricane Sandy. At least they have that going for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.