twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Things changed after 79...both requirements and protocol on embassy security the notion funds or qualified security personnel were unavailable if State saw a need at Benghazi is flat wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Again highlighting Embassies are by definition insecure places and history bares that out is relevant to the discussion. Highlighting Benghazi wasn't an Embassy but a consulate which are even less secure... If you are going to say security was the issue, you should at least be able to point to one single instance in nistory where consulate security actually sucessfully defended against such an attack without outside assistance, just once... You can't, you can't even point to such an instance where security foiled such and attack an an embassy, because there isn't one... Rather there are only cases where greately enhanced security was ineffective agaisnt much smaller determined attacks. Again that's not yammering, that's RELEVANT.. I will point to one single instance from that very same night. The consulate was penetrate, overrun, and set on fire. The Annex was not. There are no reports of small arms fire at the consulate. The annex was attacked with small arms and RPGs...and the attack was turned back. Talk of Saigon and "relief columns" is textbook yammering...even worse it is poorly informed yammering. Now if your argument hinges on the fact that by calling one building a consulate and another an annex changes the "defendability" of it...then I am sure that would be a fascinating discussion as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I will point to one single instance from that very same night. The consulate was penetrate, overrun, and set on fire. The Annex was not. . The consulate and CIA annex had the same number of defenders.. 2 people died at the consulate.. 2 people died at the annex. The annex came under mortor, rpg, machine gun attack and was abandoned.. evacuated.. The Consulate came under attack and was also abandoned... I don't see the defense of the annex as any more sucessful as the defense of the consulate.. They were equally defended, and equally unsucessful in that defense. Talk of Saigon and "relief columns" is textbook yammering...even worse it is poorly informed yammering. Why is it "yammering" to note the newly constructed, most expensive and most heavily defended Embassy in the world in 1969 was sucessfully attacked and penetrated by 19 guys? Why is it "yammering" to say that no embassy can defend itself against a siege by such a force as attacked Benghazi ( 150 guys) without host government assistance? Much less a consulate! Now if your argument hinges on the fact that by calling one building a consulate and another an annex changes the "defendability" of it...then I am sure that would be a fascinating discussion as well My argument is overwhelming and doesn't hinge on the difference between an embassy and a consulate... I just make note of it because it's a fact... A building hosting 800, 1200, 2000 people as our embassies do is much more heavily defended than a consulate which hosts 10, 20, 30 people. If we can't even agree consulates are much smaller satilite instalations by definition and embassies are larger focal points of diplomatic busines, Hubs of our deplomacy then even base reality is foreign to the position you are putting forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The consulate and CIA annex had the same number of defenders.. 2 people died at the consulate.. 2 people died at the annex. The annex came under mortor, rpg, machine gun attack and was abandoned.. evacuated.. The Consulate came under attack and was also abandoned... I don't see the defense of the annex as any more sucessful as the defense of the consulate.. They were equally defended, and equally unsucessful in that defense. Your contention is that there is no difference in what transpired in the Consulate and what transpired at the Annex? One facility is completely overrun without a single shot fired. A communications officer and an Ambassador are killed in one because a building was lit on fire. The facility was evacuated without even the time to secure or dispose of information on site. And that is the same in your mind as an attack that was completely turned back. An attack utilizing small arms and RPGs mind you. And a deliberate decision made the following morning after 2 security officers were killed as a result of indirect mortar fire. And those are the "same" in your mind. In one we owned the decision points. In the other we didn't. Why is it "yammering" to note the newly constructed, most expensive and most heavily defended Embassy in the world in 1969 was sucessfully attacked and penetrated by 19 guys? Why is it "yammering" to say that no embassy can defend itself against a siege by such a force as attacked Benghazi ( 150 guys) without host government assistance? Much less a consulate!Because it is not 1969? Because the combat power of the American servicemember has increased exponentially since 1969 while that of the attacker is generally the same? Because there is evidence from that very night that active defense repelled the attack. And price point has absolutely nothing to do with this. My argument is overwhelming and doesn't hinge on the difference between an embassy and a consulate...It is overwhelming alright. I just make note of it because it's a fact... A building hosting 800, 1200, 2000 people as our embassies do is much more heavily defended than a consulate which hosts 10, 20, 30 people. If we can't even agree consulates are much smaller satilite instalations by definition and embassies are larger focal points of diplomatic busines, Hubs of our deplomacy then even base reality is foreign to the position you are putting forward.Consulates are smaller. Which means nothing. In fact it is in many ways easier to defend a small facility than a large one. Of course the distinction between "Embassy" and "consulate" is simply relevant in the role that each one plays in the specific country in which they are located. The Embassy is in the capital....and the consulate is not. Has nothing to do with size. Or number of people it supports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Things changed after 79...both requirements and protocol on embassy security the notion funds or qualified security personnel were unavailable if State saw a need at Benghazi is flat wrong. Yes they did.. In 1983 an independent group took note of 119 State Department instalations which had inferior security... and called for them to be replaced or significantly reengineered.. To date congress has not fully funded updating those sites... Both the Embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi which openned in 2010 had poor site security at the time. As do many other State Department facilities. As for qualified security personnel being available... The secuirty team at Benghazi were deployed and then their deployment was extended once... If they had more teams why not just replace them, why extend them. The deployment could not be extended more than once... So why not replace them when when tey were recalled? Hell why even have a limit to the deployments of your security teams if they weren't in short supply? And then we have statements from The white house, Vice President, Secretary of State, even the Department of Defense who was supplying the teams, that the state deparement security budget was cut too far.. PRIOR TO BENHGAZI... And of coarse you have the facts the security budget was gutted... hundreds of millions in 2010 and cut nearly in half by 500 million in 2011.... These are just the accounts for security personell... The budget for building construction security was also cut 2010, and 2011.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 They clearly found more security teams AFTER the fact, they also clearly chose to spend increased budgeted security funds elsewhere BEFORE the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Your contention is that there is no difference in what transpired in the Consulate and what transpired at the Annex? One facility is completely overrun without a single shot fired. A communications officer and an Ambassador are killed in one because a building was lit on fire. The facility was evacuated without even the time to secure or dispose of information on site. And that is the same in your mind as an attack that was completely turned back. An attack utilizing small arms and RPGs mind you. And a deliberate decision made the following morning after 2 security officers were killed as a result of indirect mortar fire. And those are the "same" in your mind. In one we owned the decision points. In the other we didn't. Completely turned back? The annex was abandoned... We left... Your point is nonsensical.. are you suggesting Obama told the consulate not fo fire a shot? Are you saying the consulate would have been better off if the handful of defenders had started shooting at 150 armed guys coming over the wall? Our embassy in Tehran didn't fire a shot in 79 either... were they mistaken in their actions too? Too bad we didn't have John Wayne or Wyad Erp in the consulate right... Or a Texas Ranger.. One riot one Texas Ranger... yeah that's the ticket..... I think that's what Defense Secretary Gates was reffering to as a "commic book understanding of security". Because it is not 1969? Because the combat power of the American servicemember has increased exponentially since 1969 while that of the attacker is generally the same? Because there is evidence from that very night that active defense repelled the attack. And price point has absolutely nothing to do with this. Yes it absolutely has... if you want to include air, artilary, tanks and all the capabilities our trillions of dollars of investment have gained us over the last four decades.. But a sentry with a rifle... I'm not sure his his power has increased exponentially... but increases sure.. but it has not increased so much that the handful of defenders in Benghazi's isolated consulate is superior to the US Embassy in Saigan backed up by our 600,000 troops deployed in Vietnam at that time. The US Embassy alone at that time was the newest, largest, and most heavily defended embassy in the world, 19 guys penetrated it... 150 guys attacked Behngazi.. It is overwhelming alright. Not an argument.. Consulates are smaller. Which means nothing. In fact it is in many ways easier to defend a small facility than a large one. Of course the distinction between "Embassy" and "consulate" is simply relevant in the role that each one plays in the specific country in which they are located. The Embassy is in the capital....and the consulate is not. Has nothing to do with size. Or number of people it supports. When funds are short... when your security budget has been cut for years, and was just slashed in half... Can we agree you try to provide more security to where you have more people? Which is just a statement of fact. The Embassy in Tripoli had a much larger security force than the consulate in Behngazi... We had more people defending a much larger, much more important facility and fewer people defending a smaller less important facility.. Now you are going to say you could have stripped the embasssy to provide better security for Behngazi.. Which is 20 20 hind site... Both had inferior security.. Tripoli didn't have adiquate security either according to the state department own studies... They clearly found more security teams AFTER the fact, they also clearly chose to spend increased budgeted security funds elsewhere BEFORE the fact. State buys the services of the special forces security teams from the DoD. So they have access to security teams if they can pay for them... of the kind which were originally deployed and then extended before being removed from Behngazi. Congress cut the security budget further in 2012 so no they don't spend or have more security teams in 2012 than they did in 2011.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Completely turned back? The annex was abandoned... We left... Your point is nonsensical.. are you suggesting Obama told the consulate not fo fire a shot? Are you saying the consulate would have been better off if the handful of defenders had started shooting at 150 armed guys coming over the wall? Our embassy in Tehran didn't fire a shot in 79 either... were they mistaken in their actions too? Too bad we didn't have John Wayne or Wyad Erp in the consulate right... Or a Texas Ranger.. One riot one Texas Ranger... yeah that's the ticket..... I think that's what Defense Secretary Gates was reffering to as a "commic book understanding of security". No, actually. I am not suggesting a single thing about what President Obama did or did not do on the night of the attack. I am suggesting that handful of resistance would have likely turned back the "assault". Just like it did across town. Do you have any experience, at all, with what capabilities lie in the hands of a single soldier or Marine these days? Let alone the combat power of a rifle squad or platoon? Any at all? It certainly appears as if you don't have much familiarity with the modern military. I am not evaluating the behavior of folks in Tehran or Saigon. Neither are relevant to the discussion of Benghazi. Except that they both involved Department of State facilities....and that is about the extent of the similarities. Yes it absolutely has... if you want to include air, artilary, tanks and all the capabilities our trillions of dollars of investment have gained us over the last four decades.. But a sentry with a rifle... I'm not sure his his power has increased exponentially... but increases sure.. but it has not increased so much that the handful of defenders in Benghazi's isolated consulate is superior to the US Embassy in Saigan backed up by our 600,000 troops deployed in Vietnam at that time. The US Embassy alone at that time was the newest, largest, and most heavily defended embassy in the world, 19 guys penetrated it... 150 guys attacked Behngazi..A "sentry" with a rifle, and night vision, and infrared designators, and laser aiming devices. The ability of that "sentry" to bring to bear precise munitions that could be launched from hundreds of miles away....if only someone cared enough to plan for it. A "sentry" with a rifle sounds a lot like 1969, or maybe 1949. It certainly appears as though you have not even a basic knowledge of combat power of our forces. At least the power that exists post Vietnam. And I think most folks with any exposure would know that the differences are not minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It is at this point extremely pointless to debate this on a granular level. The only reason politicians and media continue to focus on this story is in order to frame it as it relates to the 2016 presidential election. It has ceased to be about reality and policy, it is now 100% about perception and optics. Everyone in this thread already knows how they are voting in 2016. And this is why we're in this situation. Two parties, each competing for, maybe, 2% of the vote. Democrat could drown a puppy on live TV and still get 40+ percent of the vote from their base. A Republican could literally be Hitler and get his/her 40%. Both parties work to snuff out a third party and then use that third party to pull votes away from their main competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.