As Jonathan wrote earlier, Charles Woods, father of the former SEAL Tyrone Woods, is questioning why the Obama administration did not respond with military force to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi on September 11. If action had been taken promptly, Ty Woods and the others might have survived.
He’s not the only one raising good questions about the lack of a response. Bing West, a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. “Stationed at Sigonella,” he notes, “were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft — a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy.”
He continues: “Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours…. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites.”
West concludes: “For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve.”
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now explains the decision not to act militarily by saying that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation” because they didn’t have enough “real-time information about what’s taking place.” But of course more real-time information could have been obtained by sending aircraft to overfly Benghazi.
In any case, Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information, especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched. It is indeed puzzling that there was apparently no standing plan to send a Quick Reaction Force to Benghazi (or other areas in North Africa where U.S. outposts are located) or, if such a plan existed, the decision was made not to activate it.
There is no doubt that there was a serious failure at all levels of the U.S. government before, during, and after the Benghazi attack. This is simply more evidence of the screw-ups that occurred and the need to have better procedures in place the next time an incident like this occurs.
America is not protecting herself. n nWith all the talk of budget cuts, entitlements, deficits, the one duty that our government has, above all others, is to protect its citizens. That is why defense is not a private sector affair but remains the responsibility of our federal government. Yet, our government is failing at that duty. n nReading and watching the Benghazi debacle unfold, learning of our leaders' utter incompetence at not only reacting but at failing to even explain their incompetence is a national horror show. If our government is unable to respond to the embassy in Libya, unable to muster the courage to defend our people abroad, unable to respond quickly and decisively, then what have we become? How do our adversaries see us? n nOne has to wonder: Is this the best we can do? Our nation has done much better in the past, and can do even better in the future. Our current leaders are not a reflection of our people and we are seeing this in spades with their unbelievable inability to do what is their first duty to the nation. The more we hear of Benghazi the less faith Americans will have in our leaders.
I don't for a minute believe " he and top military commanders 'felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation'". I believe that is Panetta covering for his boss. I believe he was told he was not allowed to put assets in there. The USG was pretending Libya had a real government and had to keep up the charade. If our people are under attack and the locals aren't doing anything to stop it, losing sovereignty of their airspace is a small price for them to pay. They violated the sovereignty of our soil at our missions.
Doesn't sound like 'fog of war', does it? n nSounds like intentional neglect.
In today's sophisticated world, the" fog of war" is a misnomer. there is no fog anymore and certainly not for many hours. I think that the military leaders did not do anything because they did not get the green light from higher up- the White House- because technically ,it would be like attacking a foreign country. What was disappointing was Condolezza Rice's response on the van Susteren hour, avoiding to condemn the Administration-specifically based on this bogus "fog of war".
n nObama went to sleep while our people were dying, after either not authorizing intervention, or not being asked to authorize it, and got up and went campaigning first thing in the morning. n n nOne of the great failures of presidential leadership. n n
The firefighters and police who died in the twin towers did not have complete information. They went in anyway. When lives are at stake, that's what you do. There is no doubt in my mind that our military would have done the same, regardless of the risk. Not to send rescue personel into Bengazi was therefore a purely political decision, made in real time, from the oval office.
Isn't there this fellow, Petraeus I believe is his name, who heads up a unit known as the CIA? Where is he? Haven't heard from him in some time. Is he still hired…or did he get promoted to Islamist outreach?
A few thoughts come to mind. Generally, almost rhetorically, why isn’t this decision to stand down devastating Obama politically? I don’t get it? MSM soft pedalling the issue I understand, Romney Ryan quietism here I don’t. And, is Panetta’s rationalization of inaction an admission of a high level specific decision not to act having been made, and if so how high up, and by whom?