Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm doing neither, just posed a rational question. Why do you have such a difficult time dealing with rationality?
What would "working" look like?
Didn't we lose 241 Marines through that strategy?
The primary security at the consulate was being provided by Libyan troops, it's not like the place was undefended. Given the situation it's quite reasonable to think keeping a lower profile would be a sensible thing to do. This appears to have been a calculated terrorist attack that exploited a weak point.
-spence
|
"What would "working" look like?"
You really don't know? How about fewer living jihadists that want to kill Americans.
"Didn't we lose 241 Marines through that strategy?"
Yes we did, which is exactly why I said that even that doesn't guarantee safety. But it helps. Reagan said it best..."peace through strength".
"The primary security at the consulate was being provided by Libyan troops..."
First you said that security details were not disclosed. Now, you are opining on the details. Were those details released between the time of your last post and this post?
Even if that's true, great! Let's put the lives of Americans in the hands of those who are in kahoots with the jihadists. I'm sure that's of great comfort to the family of the murdered (and raped, from what I understand) ambassador.
"Given the situation it's quite reasonable to think keeping a lower profile would be a sensible thing to do. "
OK, so now you're a security tactical expert. Spence, what 'situation' is that, exactly? Keeping a low profile is preferable when you are trying to not draw attention to yourself. In this case, everyone in the world knows that the American abmassador can be found at the American embassy, that's not classified information. Therefore, how is the ambassador safer with a 'low profile', than he would be with a company of Marines between him and the jihadists?