Obama ‘taking Iran’s side’ on damages from ’83 bombing that killed 241 Marines

Reagan was President at the time. What did he do about the attack?

After the barracks bombing President Reagan met with the NSC and ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on the terrorists in the Bekaa Valley. The main target was the terrorists' "barracks" in which there was a group of Iranian Revolutionary guards. These Iranians were there to train palestinian terrorists. Iran also provided funding.

A US carrier was waiting off of Lebanon in preparation for the strike- and the strike was to occur as early as a day after the barracks bombing. Pentagon advisors [guess who?], with the recent experience of getting burned in Vietnam still rattling around in their heads, were extrememly cautious. The CIA had recently lost its station chief and other personnel in Lebanon in the embassy bombing and was effectively blinded; this heightened the reluctance to act. Sec Def Weinberger decided to call it off. It probably isn't much of a surprise but Weinberger's top military aide at that time was none other than Lt Gen. Colin Powell. Sec of State Schulz, knowing diplomacy was going nowhere, counseled swift retaliation, while Weinberger and Powell balked, wanting to avoid another Vietnam, and the CIA, which was needed to help clarify and define the mission with intel, had been devestated by the Church Committee in the mid 70s and gutted of its active operatives at the end of the 70s. The administration was paralyzed with military self-doubt and blinded with lack of intel in the face of the terrorists and the new regime in Iran.

The only thing we did beyond the aborted attack was to shell the hills around Beirut using a battleship, but as we did so we packed our bags and left.

There was an attack on Hezbollah "spritual" leader Sheikh Fadlallah via a car bombing that failed because the guy came out of the mosque too late and missed the big event. Some blamed it on the CIA -because it was a flop- and the CIA was famous for failure. If it was CIA then it was an attempt to get the perps.

Then there was the TWA hijacking with its numerous US citizens aboard and the Navy personnel in addition to citizens of oter countries. Navy man Stetham was murdered and the hijackers demanded the release of Shiite prisoners being held by Israel. US paralysis only worsened for fear of having these passengers murdered. Israel released the Shiite prisoners. Iran certainly wasn't inhibited by any fear of failure.

And the US pullout from Lebanon, after "getting our nose rubbed in it," ended up further emboldening terrorists to target the US. Ultimately it was cited by Osama bin Laden, along with Clinton's retreat from Somalia, Carter's retreat from Iran, and other premature retreats, as proof that the US was a paper tiger. That and the short American attention span was a way to recruit more followers for the global jihad before 9/11. Reagan made an attmpt to restore Us confidence by acting forcefully against Qadaffi after the Disco bombing in Germany and for a bit it worked. But in the face of dealing with the more complex problem of Iran, no American administration seems able to face the task of shutting down Iran even though it has been known from day one that Iran is the heart and soul of terrorism.

We spent the next two admins, both Bush's and Clinton's, trying and failing to deal with terrorism as if it is a matter of law enforcement, as if it is not state-sponsored. We've even heard some suggest the situation as "normal" and the murder and blackmail is at acceptable levels rather than contemplate dealing with it.

And as we can see by Obama's foreign policy today and relative lack of debate on it, that Osama bin Laden and Iran were entirely correct in their assessment of American character. It's no wonder Iran is now comfortable expanding operations into our own hemisphere, setting bombs off in Argentina and running operatives over our border. It can afford to lose operatives indefinitely when it can still achieve its goals without its leadership suffering for their decisions. And the leadership will not suffer because they understand American politics and weaknesses better than most Americans do.

Good follow on.

It’s important to understand that the US doesn’t start and stop every 4 years with a new president. Pentagon and State Department policy is always ongoing like a train rolling with huge momentum.

A new president can switch that train from track to parallel track but the train keeps going in basically the same direction, just losing and gaining cars depending on the political winds.

Senseless actions like having Marines occupy the old PLO hq surrounded by high ground filled with the enemy for political purpose borders on the criminal. Especially considering that our embassy was car bombed a few months earlier.

Marines will never forget their single biggest loss of life since WW2 because of the largest non-nuclear explosion ever known.

Every Marine I know is aware of the Beirut bombing and there is a universal distrust of politicians and the politician-driven general staff to this day.

Jihadists need to understand that Marines have far lower capture rates than the Army as a direct personal, no-quarter understanding of warfare with them. Beirut is avenged every day and will be until the jihadists quit fighting.

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.