JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[JMS]

So what mistakes do you think were made in Mogadishu that we would have been at risk of repeating there?

In Mogadishu we had 160 soldiers, superior air support, superior mobility.. You are right as soon as we lost one soldier who fell out of the helecopter we lost our advantage. mobility doesn't matter if the bad guys know where you are and you have to stay there. Mobility was also mitigated because the bad guys who had about a 20 to one advantage on people knew the area we would be defending before we did. They basically tied us up and trampled us. Mitigated our strength, maximized their own.

We took 1 casualty and we were locked in place, that allowed all the other bad things to occur.

That is the "mistake" we would have been at risk of repeating.. sending 16-30-50 guys in to face hundreds. or hundreds in to face thousands.. Sending people in blind.

I think the same can be said in Benghazi. Once the first shots were fired the engagement was no longer on our terms.

The "engagement" was never on our terms. We had mostly unarmed guys facing 150 armed terrorists.

They picked the time, the ground, and knew who we had to call in, it was a no win situation for us by design.

We absolutely don't leave them there to die because we are worried about what may happen to the rescue element.

Well we didn't leave them out there to die. They sent two relief groups and got them the hell out of dodge at the earliest possibility. That seemed to be a pretty good game plan... We could have sent 200 guys in there, and those 200 guys could still have been facing 600 terrorists or 2000, in fortified positions.... The lesson of mogidishu is to not fight the guy on his terms, don't get bogged down and allow him to mitigate your advantages. Hell if we had sent a huge releif effort more folks would have died than just 4. They did well as it played out.

If you are going to commit troups know what you are committing them into and go strong, I think that's a good rule and I think Penetta and the generals did well here.. given all the things we didn't know.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:36 AM ----------

They knew that the consulate was under attack and that Americans were in danger. The RSO made the decision to move to the safe room very early from one of the timelines I saw. At that point, in my opinion at least, our hand has been forced. You commit what you have to rescue those at risk. The monday morning quarterbacking then is to discuss whether or not there should have been more assets in Benghazi, in Tripoli, off the coast, whatever. That was one of the big issues with Mogadishu right? No resources on hand to to execute the mission that needed to be executed. That is why we had to use Pakistani and Malaysian forces to rescue our guys...or try to anyway.

But that's their entire game.. To force our hand... They tried that here, and I don't think our hand was forced, I think we opted to send in the surgical teams, with instructions to get the hell out. Rather than go in with company or batalion of guys to hit the terrorist back.

The big issue with Mogandishu wasn't no resources. I mean sure when the crisis was upon us we really needed heavy tanks to bail us out and didn't have them; but the real issue was what caused the crisis. We were forced to defend ground against superior forces because those superior forces set a trap which we fell into. They forced our hand and we played their game. That's what killed our 80 soldiers.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:39 AM ----------

[/color]

There was UAV coverage. There was reporting from the Consulate in distress. It is not "blindly" throwing anything into an "unknown" situation. Second of all...you have an Ambassador of the United States of America in distress. So yes, you commit resources to securing him. And I am not sure what kind of "liability" you are talking about that would be created. Perhaps you can expound on that

It would absolutely have been going in blind. The unarmed UAV can see who's attacking the consulate, but it doesn't know if those are the only bad guys there. The consulate doesn't know either. You send a company or batalion into that and you absolutely could have been facing Mogadishu II. We knew about the 150 guys who attacked the consulate, but we don't know if their were 2000 guys wating for our counter strike.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:55 AM ----------

Black Hawk down also showed that a few US military forces can handle thousands... (lets give our boys credit)

Could we not be sick and tired of something that killed out boys and we haven't had the first real report yet? I mean really.

A 13yr old can decimate the explanations given so far... If they died protecting others they need to be decorated.

Dude, I again disagree with you. 160 vs 4000 - 6000 where you end up getting half your command killed is a debacle. It was a preplanned ambush where the Mohamid Adid set out to inflict one casualty to pin our forces down and force us into that trap. That we played into it and slugged it out with him doesn't reflect well on our military. All it shows is the most highly trained and sophisticated force in the world can still get defeated and get beat up when their leaders don't make smart decisions in the face of smart oposition. Mogadishu was a defeat. We got outsmarted and played into the hands of a warlord who employs untrained children with AK's to do his mussel work. The lesson to be learned there. We aren't bullet proof and we have to make good decisions to avoid stupid idiotic sensless loss of American lives ending in defeat. defeats like Vietnam, Lebonon, and yes Mogadishu.... Thankfully not Benghezi.

Mogadishu where the United States had to rely on Pakistan to bail us out of the hole we had dug outselves into. The only good thing which came out of that was the President had the good sense not to commit more troops.

I heard Collin Powel speak last friday... I was about six rows away from him. Powel is probable one of the best military leaders this country has produced in 50 years. I believe that... The genius which embodies his sucess as a military strategist is amaizingly simple... Don't send troops in unless vital National intrests are at risk, and you can use the full advantage of the US investment in it's military grants you. If you send in troops, go all in; no half measures. It's amizing that that common sensical credo makes him a genius.. Coarse it's not just that credo which did it. It's also having the disipline to live by those words.

[Redskins Diehard]

In Mogadishu we had 160 soldiers, superior air support, superior mobility.. You are right as soon as we lost one soldier who fell out of the helecopter we lost our advantage. mobility doesn't matter if the bad guys know where you are and you have to stay there. Mobility was also mitigated because the bad guys who had about a 20 to one advantage on people knew the area we would be defending before we did. They basically tied us up and trampled us. Mitigated our strength, maximized their own.

We took 1 casualty and we were locked in place, that allowed all the other bad things to occur.

I never said we lost our advantage. I said we lost our initiative. They are not the same thing. We maintained significant advantage throughout Gothic Serpent. And we did not lose the initiative when Blackburn fell out of the helicopter. That was a bump in the road compared to having a downed MH60 and isolated crew in the city. Word of advice and take it for what it is worth...if you ever come across any of the guys that were there I wouldn't share the "they tied us up and trampled us" assessment with them.

That is the "mistake" we would have been at risk of repeating.. sending 16-30-50 guys in to face hundreds. or hundreds in to face thousands.. Sending people in blind.

Are you asserting that sending in the rescue convoys in Mogadishu was a mistake? There were plenty of tactical, operational, and strategic mistakes associated with that mission to choose from. Are you saying that sending in the convoys was one of them?

The "engagement" was never on our terms. We had mostly unarmed guys facing 150 armed terrorists.

They picked the time, the ground, and knew who we had to call in, it was a no win situation for us by design.

I agree with you that it was never on our terms. That is my point. We do not get to choose whether or not we have enough information to commit our QRF....if there is one. They took the initiative when they placed our Ambassador in peril. We did not get to choose anymore.

Well we didn't leave them out there to die. They sent two relief groups and got them the hell out of dodge at the earliest possibility. That seemed to be a pretty good game plan... We could have sent 200 guys in there, and those 200 guys could still have been facing 600 terrorists or 2000, in fortified positions.... The lesson of mogidishu is to not fight the guy on his terms, don't get bogged down and allow him to mitigate your advantages. Hell if we had sent a huge releif effort more folks would have died than just 4. They did well as it played out.

So you have no problem sending in the 2 "relief groups" but would have had a problem with anymore? So it was bad enough and we knew enough to send people from the Annex and the Embassy but NOT bad enough and we did not know enough to send anymore. In other words you have defined the opposite scenario as Sean Hannity....he says nothing was done right and you say everything was.

But that's their entire game.. To force our hand... They tried that here, and I don't think our hand was forced, I think we opted to send in the surgical teams, with instructions to get the hell out. Rather than go in with company or batalion of guys to hit the terrorist back.

They killed our Ambassador. I really don't think making the claim that their objective to force "our hand" is accurate or relevant.

The big issue with Mogandishu wasn't no resources. I mean sure when the crisis was upon us we really needed heavy tanks to bail us out and didn't have them; but the real issue was what caused the crisis. We were forced to defend ground against superior forces because those superior forces set a trap which we fell into. They forced our hand and we played their game. That's what killed our 80 soldiers.

80 soldiers were not killed in Mogadishu. You started with "lost". You have progressed to "killed". You are wrong.

It would absolutely have been going in blind. The unarmed UAV can see who's attacking the consulate, but it doesn't know if those are the only bad guys there. The consulate doesn't know either. You send a company or batalion into that and you absolutely could have been facing Mogadishu II. We knew about the 150 guys who attacked the consulate, but we don't know if their were 2000 guys wating for our counter strike.

As it turns out it appears we had a fairly robust intelligence element on the ground at the Annex. We had UAVs. We had eyes on. Did we know where every single possible threat was? Probably not. Do we ever know where every single possible threat is? No. Did we know there was nobody with an RPG in Abbottabad? No. But we sent helicopters in anyway.

Dude, I again disagree with you. 160 vs 4000 - 6000 where you end up getting half your command killed is a debacle. It was a preplanned ambush where the Mohamid Adid set out to inflict one casualty to pin our forces down and force us into that trap. That we played into it and slugged it out with him doesn't reflect well on our military. All it shows is the most highly trained and sophisticated force in the world can still get defeated and get beat up when their leaders don't make smart decisions in the face of smart oposition. Mogadishu was a defeat. We got outsmarted and played into the hands of a warlord who employs untrained children with AK's to do his mussel work. The lesson to be learned there. We aren't bullet proof and we have to make good decisions to avoid stupid idiotic sensless loss of American lives ending in defeat. defeats like Vietnam, Lebonon, and yes Mogadishu.... Thankfully not Benghezi.

Mogadishu where the United States had to rely on Pakistan to bail us out of the hole we had dug outselves into. The only good thing which came out of that was the President had the good sense not to commit more troops.

I heard Collin Powel speak last friday... I was about six rows away from him. Powel is probable one of the best military leaders this country has produced in 50 years. I believe that... The genius which embodies his sucess as a military strategist is amaizingly simple... Don't send troops in unless vital National intrests are at risk, and you can use the full advantage of the US investment in it's military grants you. If you send in troops, go all in; no half measures. It's amizing that that common sensical credo makes him a genius.. Coarse it's not just that credo which did it. It's also having the disipline to live by those words.

Are you saying that the President did not commit more troops to Mogadishu after the events of Oct 3/4? He in fact did decide to send armor in AFTER the battle was over. It is interesting you cite Gen Powell and his theory of overwhelming force and ignore the fact that he made that same argument BEFORE Gothic Serpent. One of the big strategic mistakes of that whole situation was a mission creep without the associated resource creep. Both our strategic execution and our response were another step in the direction of 9-11. An emboldened adversary that had no respect for American resolve or ability to take a punch.

[twa]

One of the big strategic mistakes of that whole situation was a mission creep without the associated resource creep. Both our strategic execution and our response were another step in the direction of 9-11. An emboldened adversary that had no respect for American resolve or ability to take a punch.

Yep, and it is reflected in the Benghazi mess

you present weakness and someone will take advantage....and we certainly had our ass hanging out there

I do think there might have been concern over the man-pad threat in the rescue options though, wouldn't be the first time a trap was baited.(which could be suppressed,but doing so would be ugly)

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-security-breakdown-in-benghazi/2012/11/02/a34b7dd0-250f-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

And then there's uh...this.

Giuliani is just kind of sad these days....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/02/in-fiery-speech-giuliani-calls-on-obama-to-resign-faults-him-for-libya/

I think the Washington Post article does a pretty good job laying out my feelings on the situation also. Instead of the group of people that want to question everything that happened. And the group of people that feel compelled to defend every thing that happened. There are some questions out there that should be asked. And should be answered.

As far as Giuliani....minus 9-11 he would have left his terms as mayor in the midst of scandal.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 09:32 AM ----------

Yep, and it is reflected in the Benghazi mess

you present weakness and someone will take advantage....and we certainly had our ass hanging out there

I do think there might have been concern over the man-pad threat in the rescue options though, wouldn't be the first time a trap was baited.(which could be suppressed,but doing so would be ugly)

It would be interesting to see what the manpad threat would have been. Since we were providing the air cover during the revolution I can't imagine that we would have provided Stingers or any such weapon like we did in Afghanistan(1980's version). If the threat was RPG? Well that is there just about every single time we send anything anywhere. About the only thing more widely proliferated than an RPG at this point is an AK47. It is risky no doubt. But I'll say this again and people can disagree with me if they want...when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed. I also want to point out that to a large degree I think the game changed for us also...and in the proper manner. The UAV, the element from the Annex, the element from the Embassy(by air) they were all committed in a seemingly timely manner. And before we had plotted out every single potential threat that was out there.

The Washington Post article lays things out pretty reasonably in my opinion(mainly because they are saying the same things I have been saying:) ). It appears that we knew about security concerns at least a month before this took place. There are all types of responses to these concerns...what did we do?

[JMS]

I never said we lost our advantage. I said we lost our initiative. They are not the same thing. We maintained significant advantage throughout Gothic Serpent. And we did not lose the initiative when Blackburn fell out of the helicopter. That was a bump in the road compared to having a downed MH60 and isolated crew in the city. Word of advice and take it for what it is worth...if you ever come across any of the guys that were there I wouldn't share the "they tied us up and trampled us" assessment with them.

In the operation to capture Adid, we secured several blocks of the city including the entire building where Adid was supposed to be, took prisoners and were preparing to leave all without a single casualty. After blackburn fell, Half the command was casualties. That is kinda simptomatic of loosing the advantage... As I said our advantage was mobility, suprise, and airpower. When the descision was made to remain longer than we intened our primary advantages were gone. lost,

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 10:32 AM ----------

I Are you asserting that sending in the rescue convoys in Mogadishu was a mistake? There were plenty of tactical, operational, and strategic mistakes associated with that mission to choose from. Are you saying that sending in the convoys was one of them?

Absolutely. it was a chain of mistakes starting with strategic resulting in Adid taking away options until he knew tactically exactly what we would do, where we would be, on his ground outnumbered, waiting for his strength to roll over us while our strength was taken away or mitigated.

I agree with you that it was never on our terms. That is my point. We do not get to choose whether or not we have enough information to commit our QRF....

We did send a QRF in from Trippoli and they did arrive before the annex was attacked. But their job wasn't to engage the enemy so much as it was to secure our personell and get the hell out of dodge.

My point, We always have a choice. The moment you act reflexivily you are in trouble. Our Technology advantage works best when it's coupled with smart decision making.

They took the initiative when they placed our Ambassador in peril. We did not get to choose anymore.

They killed our Ambassador and they did it in the first hour of the confrontation. Do you think we would have or should have acted differently if the ambassador wasn't at the consulate?

So you have no problem sending in the 2 "relief groups" but would have had a problem with anymore? So it was bad enough and we knew enough to send people from the Annex and the Embassy but NOT bad enough and we did not know enough to send anymore. In other words you have defined the opposite scenario as Sean Hannity....he says nothing was done right and you say everything was.

I think it's a miracle that 150 guys attacked our consulate and we only lost 4 guys. I think miracles are usually the result of good decision making. I think the biggest mistake we could have made would be to commit a company or batalion blind not knowing what we were facing. Turn four deaths into 50, 100 or more. I think the smaller teams with orders to get our folks out were pretty sucessful.

They killed our Ambassador. I really don't think making the claim that their objective to force "our hand" is accurate or relevant.

Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell, I think it's entirely relevent premise though.

80 soldiers were not killed in Mogadishu. You started with "lost". You have progressed to "killed". You are wrong.

160 men, took 91 casualties

18 killed

73 wounded

1 captured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Are you saying that the President did not commit more troops to Mogadishu after the events of Oct 3/4? He in fact did decide to send armor in AFTER the battle was over.

Battle for Mogadisu occured October 3–4, 1993,

In a national security policy review session held in the White House on October 6, 1993, U.S Presdient Bill Clinton directed the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, to stop all actions by U.S. forces against Aidid except those required in self-defense.

....

and then announced that all U.S. Forces would withdraw from Somalia no later than March 31, 1994.

see military fallout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)#Military_fallout

It is interesting you cite Gen Powell and his theory of overwhelming force and ignore the fact that he made that same argument BEFORE Gothic Serpent. One of the big strategic mistakes of that whole situation was a mission creep without the associated resource creep. Both our strategic execution and our response were another step in the direction of 9-11. An emboldened adversary that had no respect for American resolve or ability to take a punch.

Yes mission creep was a one of the mistakes. I don't think if we had invaded and secured Mogadishu and took hundreds of casualties doing so we would have looked any stronger. You don't go to war to appear strong, or because you are afraid of looking weak. You go to war when you care enough to put the full force of the country behind it, when you have no other choice because your vital interests are at stake... There is no evidence 9-11 would have been avoided if we had a different result in mogadishu. 9-11 was about (1) Our Troops in Saudi in the first gulf war. (1b) Our support of Israel. Again with committing minimal resources AQ thought they could draw us into a war in Afghanistan and break us as the Soviet Union was broken in Afghanistan.

Our support of Saudi keeps the royal family their in power and Al Quada controling Saudi is an interum goal.. The head nod towards Israel is an appeal for broader Arab support; as Al Quada's overall goal is a return of the calaphate... an empire stretching from Iran across the ME and north Arica to Morroco and potentially even into Europe.

[Madison Redskin]

It would be interesting to see what the manpad threat would have been. Since we were providing the air cover during the revolution I can't imagine that we would have provided Stingers or any such weapon like we did in Afghanistan(1980's version). If the threat was RPG? Well that is there just about every single time we send anything anywhere. About the only thing more widely proliferated than an RPG at this point is an AK47. It is risky no doubt. But I'll say this again and people can disagree with me if they want...when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed. I also want to point out that to a large degree I think the game changed for us also...and in the proper manner. The UAV, the element from the Annex, the element from the Embassy(by air) they were all committed in a seemingly timely manner. And before we had plotted out every single potential threat that was out there.

Manpads likely refer to SA-7s, i.e., the Soviet equivalent of the Stinger. Nasty little buggers. And I believe Libya had thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of them.

[brandymac27]

US officials counter reports on Benghazi attacks

http://t.news.msn.com/us/us-officials-counter-reports-on-benghazi-attacks

[twa]

Manpads likely refer to SA-7s, i.e., the Soviet equivalent of the Stinger. Nasty little buggers. And I believe Libya had thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of them.

not really a maybe

http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo.php?contenidoID=39165

Estimates vary widely, but it appears that the Libyans had an estimated inventory of 20,000 MANPADS. It appears that the SA-7b seems to have been the most common MANPAD in the Libyan inventory, though there were also several far more advanced SA-24 missiles (the latest Russian design) that were intended to be used in vehicle-mounted launchers sold to the Libyans but that could be used as MANPADS if they were paired with the proper gripstocks and battery coolant units. Of those 20,000 missiles, teams from the United States and NATO have secured roughly 5,000; another 5,000 are thought to be in the hands of the various Libyan militias and to still be in the country. That leaves a remainder of 10,000 missiles. While a number of them were destroyed by NATO airstrikes or launched at aircraft, it is believed that somewhere around half have been smuggled out of the country. For obvious reasons, obtaining an accurate number of missiles is very difficult. Indeed, with a variety of parties involved in the smuggling, it is doubtful that anyone knows for sure how many missiles have been smuggled out of Libya.

The U.S. government has designated $40 million for a program intended to buy back Libyan MANPADS, but clearly many of them have already made it out of the country. In addition to the February seizure in Algeria, Egyptian authorities seized eight SA-24 missiles in the Sinai Peninsula in September 2011. A month earlier, two Israeli Cobra helicopters came under fire from a MANPAD fired from Sinai during a multi-stage attack launched from Sinai that resulted in the deaths of eight Israelis.

But as Redskins Diehard said 'when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed.'

what is the acceptable risk to protect a embassy and Ambassador?

The men that went to rescue certainly have a different perspective than those looking at the bigger picture....but I can certainly understand one of them wondering "Where the **** is the Spectre." before his end.

[JMS]

But as Redskins Diehard said 'when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed.'

Only the ambassador was killed within the first hour of the attack. They didn't put him in peril they killed him. It's not like chess when they capture your king the game is over.

what is the acceptable risk to protect a embassy and Ambassador?

The men that went to rescue certainly have a different perspective than those looking at the bigger picture....but I can certainly understand one of them wondering "Where the **** is the Spectre." before his end.

Spectre? source?

We didn't send folks into bengazhi with the goal of protecting our people, we sent folks in to help our people withdrawl.

Do we "look" weak in withdrawling from one of our Consulates? Should that really be a driving force in the decision making? I don't think so.

[twa]

Only the ambassador was killed within the first hour of the attack. They didn't put him in peril they killed him. It's not like chess when they capture your king the game is over.

Spectre? source?

We didn't send folks into bengazhi with the goal of protecting our people, we sent folks in to help our people withdrawl.

Do we "look" weak in withdrawling from one of our Consulates? Should that really be a driving force in the decision making? I don't think so.

From everything I have read his death was not confirmed till long after,and even recall reports of him dying later at the hospital

we send people to protect their withdrawal.....you make it sound like we sent a cab

the Spectre reference is from Griffins reporting

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

The US displaying weakness was a major factor in OBL's reasoning,and getting killed and burned out is slightly different than withdrawing.

perhaps this would make good reading

http://wecheck.org/wiki/Benghazi_Attack_Timeline

[Redskins Diehard]

In the operation to capture Adid, we secured several blocks of the city including the entire building where Adid was supposed to be, took prisoners and were preparing to leave all without a single casualty. After blackburn fell, Half the command was casualties. That is kinda simptomatic of loosing the advantage... As I said our advantage was mobility, suprise, and airpower. When the descision was made to remain longer than we intened our primary advantages were gone. lost,

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 10:32 AM ----------

Absolutely. it was a chain of mistakes starting with strategic resulting in Adid taking away options until he knew tactically exactly what we would do, where we would be, on his ground outnumbered, waiting for his strength to roll over us while our strength was taken away or mitigated.

We did send a QRF in from Trippoli and they did arrive before the annex was attacked. But their job wasn't to engage the enemy so much as it was to secure our personell and get the hell out of dodge.

My point, We always have a choice. The moment you act reflexivily you are in trouble. Our Technology advantage works best when it's coupled with smart decision making.

They killed our Ambassador and they did it in the first hour of the confrontation. Do you think we would have or should have acted differently if the ambassador wasn't at the consulate?

I think it's a miracle that 150 guys attacked our consulate and we only lost 4 guys. I think miracles are usually the result of good decision making. I think the biggest mistake we could have made would be to commit a company or batalion blind not knowing what we were facing. Turn four deaths into 50, 100 or more. I think the smaller teams with orders to get our folks out were pretty sucessful.

Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell, I think it's entirely relevent premise though.

160 men, took 91 casualties

18 killed

73 wounded

1 captured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Battle for Mogadisu occured October 3–4, 1993,

Yes mission creep was a one of the mistakes. I don't think if we had invaded and secured Mogadishu and took hundreds of casualties doing so we would have looked any stronger. You don't go to war to appear strong, or because you are afraid of looking weak. You go to war when you care enough to put the full force of the country behind it, when you have no other choice because your vital interests are at stake... There is no evidence 9-11 would have been avoided if we had a different result in mogadishu. 9-11 was about (1) Our Troops in Saudi in the first gulf war. (1b) Our support of Israel. Again with committing minimal resources AQ thought they could draw us into a war in Afghanistan and break us as the Soviet Union was broken in Afghanistan.

Our support of Saudi keeps the royal family their in power and Al Quada controling Saudi is an interum goal.. The head nod towards Israel is an appeal for broader Arab support; as Al Quada's overall goal is a return of the calaphate... an empire stretching from Iran across the ME and north Arica to Morroco and potentially even into Europe.

Your version of the events in Mogadishu differ than any that have been reported with respect to sequence of events. Blackburn fell out of the first helicopter prior to the assault team securing their target. So you referenced a wikipedia article that indicates that number killed was not 80 like you stated in your previous post. And then you quoted another wikipedia article which says the ready battalion of the 24th Infantry Division was sent to Mogadishu in the wake of this battle. But you did ... that section of the article you quoted(Reminds me of the Seinfeld yada yada yada) That seems to me that President Clinton DID decide to send more troops in the aftermath. So we have at least 2 fundamental matters of fact that you have asserted incorrectly. I see you are sticking with the notion that TF Ranger was "rolled over" in Mogadishu. You made the assertion that a force of 150 only killed 4 as a success. I wonder what the ration of us v. them was in Mogadishu? And the casualties they sustained vs, the number of casualties that we sustained. I think the most conservative estimates are that "they" sustained about 150 casualties for every one of ours. Doesn't seem like we were "rolled over" as you assert.

You are pretty close about why 9-11 happened in my opinion. It is not just US troops in Saudi Arabia following Desert Storm but more or less our overall interest in the region. Which can be traced to one thing which spans Administrations. But our actions and inactions in Somalia actually did have an impact. At least according to Bin Laden:

Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

edit: But this has gone far down the Gothic Serpent comparison. Your view appears to be that they should not have gone to the crash site because it was risky. That they should have left a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy. That Shugart and Gordon should not have been inserted into the crash site. That Streuker and his convoy should not have gone in time and again to save those he could. That runs counter to the creed that those men live by. But different people can view that stuff differently

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

Manpads likely refer to SA-7s, i.e., the Soviet equivalent of the Stinger. Nasty little buggers. And I believe Libya had thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of them.

So I imagine those things would have been a threat to the plane they sent from Tripoli? If so, should we not have sent that flight until we knew where all the SA-7's were?

[JMS]

From everything I have read his death was not confirmed till long after,and even recall reports of him dying later at the hospital

I think that's true. I guess my point is the objective was not to protect the consulate, nor secure Benghezi or engage the folks who attacked us. The goal was to grab our people and get them the hell away from there. Which is what they did.

we send people to protect their withdrawal.....you make it sound like we sent a cab

I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is we didn't send folks in to go after the forces which overran our consulate, the consulate was not the priority, looking strong was not the priority, leaving was the priority.

The US displaying weakness was a major factor in OBL's reasoning,and getting killed and burned out is slightly different than withdrawing.

I disagree, we aren't weak we are the strongest nation in the world many times over. The appearance of strength is irrelivent when you are strong. The issue is you won't be strong very long if you squander your strenth, fight folks you don't have too, or allow others to dictate how you fight.

the Spectre reference is from Griffins reporting

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/

perhaps this would make good reading

http://wecheck.org/wiki/Benghazi_Attack_Timeline

Thank you that's exactly what I was looking for..

[twa]

I disagree, we aren't weak we are the strongest nation in the world many times over. The appearance of strength is irrelivent when you are strong. The issue is you won't be strong very long if you squander your strenth, fight folks you don't have too, or allow others to dictate how you fight.

..

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.

If you do not dissuade the perception you must then use that strength...much easier and cheaper to appear strong from the start to prevent idiots from truly testing you.

you know,like adequate security

[Redskins Diehard]

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.

If you do not dissuade the perception you must then use that strength...much easier and cheaper to appear strong from the start to prevent idiots from truly testing you.

you know,like adequate security

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

[KCClybun]

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.

In what way?

Terrorist don't give a **** about whether we can nuke them off the face of the earth or not. We can still do that, and they still attack.

In what way have we appeared weak to the rest of the world? Because Barack Obama admitted that Bush era foreign policy made us a laughing stock to our allies and made us look like bullies to everyone else and that there was a lot of meaningless and pointless bloodshed that ultimately had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"?

Terrorist attacked the World Trade Center with a Democrat in office, and they attacked with a Republican an office. Terrorist don't give a **** about how strong we look. The goal is to make Americans look as though they are bullies and thugs trying to force their idelogy down the rest of the world's throat by provoking them into attacking and appearing to be just that.

[Thiebear]

NLC1054: Do you think the embassy would have been better off with the 16 member special ops team or the 6 member Elite team?

That is what is referred to as appearing weak or strong.. it keeps the lower levels from testing the perimeter.

Or testing it and then trying something a bit less deadly.

[JMS]

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.

If you do not dissuade the perception you must then use that strength...much easier and cheaper to appear strong from the start to prevent idiots from truly testing you.

Let me put this another way... We were weak in Mogandishu and we were weak in Benghazi and we were weak and stupid in Beruit before that. That's why they attacked us there. It's impossible to be strong everywhere. There is no myth of American invisinsiblity in war. Anybody who was around in the early 1970's knows the American military is not invinsible.

you know,like adequate security

20-30 guys in Bengazi were attacked by 150 well armed terrorists... What to you would seem to be reasonable security?

We had eight guys respond within minutes to the consulate, we had another group of guys respond a few hours latter.. In total we lost two guys.. Two of the consulate personel and two of the responders... What force to your mind would have allowed us to appear less weak?

I don't think we did that bad, and I'm glad we don't have a few hundred or a few thousand troops in Benghezi right now.

[PeterMP]

NLC1054: Do you think the embassy would have been better off with the 16 member special ops team or the 6 member Elite team?

That is what is referred to as appearing weak or strong.. it keeps the lower levels from testing the perimeter.

Or testing it and then trying something a bit less deadly.

But in some cases terrorists don't care.

As has been pointed out, the "terrorists" took HUGE loses in Mogidishu. They still considered it a victory. Every one of the terrorists on 9/11 ended up dead, and practically, the damage to the US wasn't much more than negligible.

But they considered it a victory.

Unless something drastic happens, by the time we pull out of Afghanistan, we'll have decimated the Taliban and Al Qeada leadership w/o losing a high level leader ourselves and the kill ratio will be hugely slanted in our favor.

But I'm sure they will declare it a victory.

If we would have had better security in the consulate, would it have not happened? Potentially.

But I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have attacked anyway taken huge losses, "won" something (ultimately forced a withdraw and killed some people (potentailly even the ambassador) and declared it a victory.

When the filed for "winning" is so slanted, it is hard to win and hard to lose.

[JMS]

If we would have had better security in the consulate, would it have not happened? Potentially.

But I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have attacked anyway taken huge losses, "won" something (ultimately forced a withdraw and killed some people (potentailly even the ambassador) and declared it a victory.

When the filed for "winning" is so slanted, it is hard to win and hard to lose.

I just don't think 16 guys no matter how well trained is going to be much of a deterant when faced against 150. And frankly we din't send in a larger force because we were afraid of what we saw. We didn't send in a larger force because we thoujght the 150 was just the tip of the iceburg.

Again I say no consulate or embassy in the world could sustain itself in the face of such an attack without the support of the host country.. none.... and a 150 guys with the elemint of suprise could have given some of our military bases a run for their money much less an isolated consulate. 19 sappers penetrated and occupied part of our embassy in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam war. One of the most heavily fortified embassies in the world at the time with nearly 600,000 american troops on the gound in that country. 16 additional security wouldn't have made a lick of difference.. none.

[Redskins Diehard]

But in some cases terrorists don't care.

As has been pointed out, the "terrorists" took HUGE loses in Mogidishu. They still considered it a victory. Every one of the terrorists on 9/11 ended up dead, and practically, the damage to the US wasn't much more than negligible.

But they considered it a victory.

Unless something drastic happens, by the time we pull out of Afghanistan, we'll have decimated the Taliban and Al Qeada leadership w/o losing a high level leader ourselves and the kill ratio will be hugely slanted in our favor.

But I'm sure they will declare it a victory.

If we would have had better security in the consulate, would it have not happened? Potentially.

But I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have attacked anyway taken huge losses, "won" something (ultimately forced a withdraw and killed some people (potentailly even the ambassador) and declared it a victory.

When the filed for "winning" is so slanted, it is hard to win and hard to lose.

They considered it a win in Mogadishu because they got us out of their country. It emboldened them. Their objectives are essentially what JMS pointed out early. To end our involvement in the Middle East. And to end our support of Israel. That is what Bin Laden wanted to accomplish. He wanted to attack our Embassy and USS Cole and then finally our homeland with the expectation that we did NOT have the resolve to respond. That instead our populace would rise up and demand that we get out of Muslim lands and end our support of Israel. This position was somewhat based on our reaction to their previous attacks on our interests. President Bush and President Obama after him demonstrated that was not the case. What Bin Laden was really wrong about was the fact that a majority of Americans didn't, and still don't, understand why they attacked us in all those scenarios.

I don't think Benghazi is similar to Mogadishu in that regard. But the "terrorists" in Benghazi killed a United States Ambassador which has happened a total of I think 7 times in our history. That is significant. Joe Biden might even say a big ****ing deal.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 04:21 PM ----------

I just don't think 16 guys no matter how well trained is going to be much of a deterant when faced against 150. And frankly we din't send in a larger force because we were afraid of what we saw. We didn't send in a larger force because we thoujght the 150 was just the tip of the iceburg.

Again I say no consulate or embassy in the world could sustain itself in the face of such an attack without the support of the host country.. none.... and a 150 guys with the elemint of suprise could have given some of our military bases a run for their money much less an isolated consulate. 19 sappers penetrated and occupied part of our embassy in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam war. One of the most heavily fortified embassies in the world at the time with nearly 600,000 american troops on the gound in that country. 16 additional security wouldn't have made a lick of difference.. none.

I'm quite certain the embassy in Kabul and the embassy in Baghdad are both positioned to sustain itself in the face of such an attack as we saw in Benghazi.

[twa]

Let me put this another way... We were weak in Mogandishu and we were weak in Benghazi and we were weak and stupid in Beruit before that. That's why they attacked us there. It's impossible to be strong everywhere. There is no myth of American invisinsiblity in war. Anybody who was around in the early 1970's knows the American military is not invinsible.

20-30 guys in Bengazi were attacked by 150 well armed terrorists... What to you would seem to be reasonable security?

We had eight guys respond within minutes to the consulate, we had another group of guys respond a few hours latter.. In total we lost two guys.. Two of the consulate personel and two of the responders... What force to your mind would have allowed us to appear less weak?

I don't think we did that bad, and I'm glad we don't have a few hundred or a few thousand troops in Benghezi right now.

Did you mean invincible?

5 security personnel is not near enough,and combined with the caliber of the Libyan security would be laughable if not so tragic

respond within minutes????....do you even know how many 'minutes' it was while the consulate was overrun and set ablaze?

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 03:26 PM ----------

I just don't think 16 guys no matter how well trained is going to be much of a deterant when faced against 150. And frankly we din't send in a larger force because we were afraid of what we saw. We didn't send in a larger force because we thoujght the 150 was just the tip of the iceburg.

16 additional security wouldn't have made a lick of difference.. none.

Yet 10 could run the gauntlet and rescue them w/o even heavy weapons?

I'd suggest you don't understand the capabilities of our special forces.

[Redskins Diehard]

Did you mean invincible?

5 security personnel is not near enough,and combined with the caliber of the Libyan security would be laughable if not so tragic

respond within minutes????....do you even know how many 'minutes' it was while the consulate was overrun and set ablaze?

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 03:26 PM ----------

Yet 10 could run the gauntlet and rescue them w/o even heavy weapons?

I'd suggest you don't understand the capabilities of our special forces.

Wouldn't even require special forces. Well trained conventional forces could have handled this situation. 150 people attacking and not a single death due to small arms fire.

[twa]

Wouldn't even require special forces. Well trained conventional forces could have handled this situation. 150 people attacking and not a single death due to small arms fire.

True, if well trained

but with two men tasked strictly to Stevens and one doing required coms in the TOC leaves little to provide security or even observation inside a compound three football fields long.

we provide more security than that on domestic targets

[KCClybun]

I don't think Benghazi is similar to Mogadishu in that regard. But the "terrorists" in Benghazi killed a United States Ambassador which has happened a total of I think 7 times in our history. That is significant. Joe Biden might even say a big ****ing deal..

Uh, why is terrorist in quotation marks? They were terrorist. Committing and act of terrorism. For all intents and purposes it appeared to be al Qaeda operatives. Terrorist. Not "terrorist".

[Jumbo]

So tell me straight...as just an observer on the politicizing aspects of this particular "firestorm/ controversy" since it began (and I have some folks here, serious Fox-head types, who have been truly incensed and livid about this from a "Obama's the devil again on this" view since Day One)...what's the partisan end-game here...is it Obama had a meaningful hand in the development of this event and mismanaged things at a serious level...and/or engaged in serious and disgraceful cover up to protect whatever self-serving needs...vs....Obama had little to do with how this played out other than he's CIC and did nothing nefarious of any kind and it's all being just disgracefully spun for political gain by the right...I mean, is that about it?....or I am missing more???