More relevations on Libya

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I don't think that was the question.

I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out and didn't offset the risks of sending in special forces from Italy. There was apparently a long lull in the fighting that resumed early morning with the quick mortar attack after the CIA reinforcements had arrived from Tripoli.

The Predator would have given them intel on movement around the consulate (or where ever it was looking) but they don't appear to have had good intel on the bigger situation.

I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict. Most of the security in Benghazi was contracted through militias and this could have easily pitted pro-government forces against Islamist.

Given the speed in which these two attacks played out I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be.

-spence

"I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out"

Not sure what you mean by 'played out'. The former SEALs repeatedly asked for help, and there are reports that the predator drones have video of the hours-long firefight. Someone knew those guys were fighting for their lives. So can yuo please clarify?

"I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict"

So you sacrifice a few superb Americans to avoid ruffling feathers? Sounds reasonable...Why wasn't Obama concerned about a 'sudden military presence' in Pakistan when he ordered the Bin Laden raid?

"I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be. "

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as usual, you automatically take a position that supports what your hero Obama did.

It's an easy command decision when your values aren't warped, and you aren't more concerned with getting re-elected than you are with keeping yuor people safe.

[Tagger]

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not sure what you mean by 'played out'. The former SEALs repeatedly asked for help, and there are reports that the predator drones have video of the hours-long firefight. Someone knew those guys were fighting for their lives. So can yuo please clarify?

The timeline has the initial attack before 10pm, the local security team responds after about 20 minutes, grab everybody but Stevens who they couldn't find and then retreat back to the CIA annex.

Around 1 am there's a lull in the fighting at the annex and civilians get into the compound and take Stevens to the hospital.

When the backup from Tripoli arrives just before 5am (with the other SEAL) the mortar rounds are fired into the annex at 5:15 and the second attack is over at 5:30.

Not to diminish the situation, just that it doesn't appear to have been a 7 hour firefight.

So you sacrifice a few superb Americans to avoid ruffling feathers? Sounds reasonable...Why wasn't Obama concerned about a 'sudden military presence' in Pakistan when he ordered the Bin Laden raid?

Starting a regional conflict might be considered a bit more serious than ruffling a few feathers.

As for Pakistan, I'd have to believe the politics of crossing the border -- especially considering the public sentiment towards drone strikes -- was taken into consideration.

That's why even though the mission might not have been hard by SEAL standards...it was such a big call.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as usual, you automatically take a position that supports what your hero Obama did.

It's an easy command decision when your values aren't warped, and you aren't more concerned with getting re-elected than you are with keeping yuor people safe.

That's your opinion, but to state I have no idea what I'm talking about -- when I'm basically just echoing what I've read reported from the CIA and Pentagon -- just shows how desperate you are to cling to your Fox News inspired anti-Obama gotcha regardless of the facts placed in front of you.

-spence