Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, Jim is now getting his facts from Hollywood.

Expect FOX to push this as the breaking story of the century.

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.

Originally Posted by Nebe

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.

Originally Posted by wdmso

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer

Originally Posted by spence

We've covered this about 100 times already.

There was no stand down order. A local officer telling his guys not to rush into an unknown situation while they rally militia backup is not a stand down order. This has been investigated to death.

Perhaps, perhaps not

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can you point out an example of men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, who called for help for 12 hours, and were ignored? Because that's what bothers people.

Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.



Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.




"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer



Perhaps, perhaps not



Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

A thoughtful, fair post. Except your last point, IMHO. It's common to dither while worrying about collateral damage, but when Americans are literally fighting for their lives? i don't think that happens every day.

But we didn't even try. If we got F-16s there, and they said they couldn't do anything because of the proximity of the annex to civilians, or because they couldn't tell friend from foe, that's one thing. But we didn't do anything, as far as I can tell. 12 hours is a long, long time.

When we worry about collateral damage, it's usually when we are trying to see if we can kill a specific terrorist from the air, in what is more or less a passive target at the time. In that case, you can make a compelling argument that collateral damage mnight not be worth the objective. I don't know that moral calculus holds when you are talking about supporting Americans on the ground who are about to be overrun. We don't typically worry so much about collateral damage in that situation.

In any event, collateral damage was never a consideration in this case, because despite the fact we had 12 hours, we never got that far to assess what the collateral damage might have been. There were no assets on the scene, even after 12 hours. It blows my mind. That's what I cannot understand. Nor can I understand why so many people don't feel that frustration.

I don't claim to be politically neutral in this. But when it took the feds 3 days to get water to the victims of hurricane Katrina, I was very, very critical of Bush, because he absolutely deserved it. I'm capable of criticizing Republicans who are incompetent. I don't see some of the hard-core libs here showing that ability, no matter what Hilary or Obama do. It's something to see.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available.

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.

I also see that you aren't addressing Hilary's flip-flopping on the video.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.

Doherty and crew didn't fly in on a military aircraft, they commandeered a private plane. The flight to Germany didn't leave from Benghazi and by that time there were more eyes on the ground.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.

That's not what he said at all.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Doherty and crew didn't fly in on a military aircraft, they commandeered a private plane. The flight to Germany didn't leave from Benghazi and by that time there were more eyes on the ground.


That's not what he said at all.

Good points.

I read his comments in a news article, exactly as you posted them. He seems to be saying that there's no such thing as a quick reaction force that he would ever agree to send in.

We had an unarmed, predator drone over the annex during much of the 12 hour fight, sending real-time video to the white house. Plus we had radio contact with multiple people on the scene. If that's not sufficient eyes on the ground to send in aircraft, then I can't fathom an active-battle scenario that is, I just can't.

If Gates' hangup is that he wouldn't send in a single aircraft, then fine, send two. Who said it had to be one?

Has anyone ever itemized exactly what assets were within a 12 hour flight time of Benghazi? That I'd like to see. It has to be a long list, because that's a huge radius.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We had an unarmed, predator drone over the annex during much of the 12 hour fight, sending real-time video to the white house. Plus we had radio contact with multiple people on the scene. If that's not sufficient eyes on the ground to send in aircraft, then I can't fathom an active-battle scenario that is, I just can't.

The drone was already in the area performing surveillance.

Has anyone ever itemized exactly what assets were within a 12 hour flight time of Benghazi? That I'd like to see. It has to be a long list, because that's a huge radius.

The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped. It's not just flight time, for instance the F-16's in Aviano that JohnR mentioned were configured for training and not combat. There were no C130's nearby.

There are also logistical considerations like tankers to refuel, AWACS, search and rescue etc...

I just think it's pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest people would discount we had a lot of very smart and dedicated American's trying like hell to sort this out.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I just think it's pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest people would discount we had Bob trying like hell to sort this out.

fixed it

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The drone was already in the area performing surveillance.


The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped. It's not just flight time, for instance the F-16's in Aviano that JohnR mentioned were configured for training and not combat. There were no C130's nearby.

There are also logistical considerations like tankers to refuel, AWACS, search and rescue etc...

I just think it's pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest people would discount we had a lot of very smart and dedicated American's trying like hell to sort this out.

"The drone was already in the area performing surveillance."

according to the book, a drone showed up ove rth ebattle, after the former SEALs asked for it. We have sent assets to the rescue with less than that.

"The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped"

Which means what, exactly? If there were 8 guys that could have been flown in (like Glen Doherty did), that could have made ALL the difference.

"pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest "

When she keeps flip-flopping about the video, she deserves an avalance of criticism.


If there were no assets within a 12-hour flight time, that generates a new line of very fair criticism...why the hell wasn't there anything within a 12 hour flight radius of a well-known hotspot? Has anyone asked that? Whose job is it, to make sure that we don't send people into harm's way with no possible means of support, and why hasn't that person been publicly fired for this?

A 12 hour flight time represents a huge chunk of the planet. If ther ewa snothing in that radius to help these people, that's almost as bad as if there were assets that were never sent.

I can't fathom the reluctance to be outraged. That has zip to do with politics.

And again, her behavior in the aftermath, was revolting.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

If Gates really said this (and I don't doubt you), I'd like to know in what scenario, exactly, would he send in a quick reaction force? If it means you need to have 2 aircraft, fine. But whatever the protocol is, why didn't we have that functionality, within 12 hours of a well-known hotspot, on the anniversary or 09/11? And whose fault is it, that we didn't? Sarah Palin's?