reply to post by NickDC202
You really seem to be assuming a lot about me on this issue.
I can’t say I even bothered to address your political affiliation because on this issue I don’t think it should matter.
What I am concerned about is what I pointed out which is the speculation, theories, and armchair generals throwing so much into the wind
metaphorically and seeing what sticks as acceptable scenario’s.
I have read where people have said we should have used AC-130s never mind that there were people missing and opening fire would have been just as
likely to hit them.
I have read people saying we should have sent in troops never mind that the rapid response team was scrambled and were still hours away and there were
conflicting reports coming in.
How about we should have fired a hellfire from the first drone but we still have the problem of where are these missing people.
Maybe troops should have been sent in but it is obvious that Intel was less than reliable and when I think of the area and situation unfolding the
Battle of Mogadishu comes to mind.
Then there is the claim that support was told to stand down and every source I have read all imply this is alleged and hasn’t been confirmed but the
accusation is out there. Let’s say it’s true. Question who ordered the stand down? Why? Who were the people told to stand down? Soldiers? CIA?
Security forces? Also at what time was this order given? Was it before the report was made that the attack had ended or after. Also who made the
report and why was there a report the attack had ended.
Let’s look at Intel. One armed drone was on seen two and a half hours after the attack began so what was the visibility? Were the buildings on fire
and were they putting off smoke. Four hours after the attack a second unarmed drone replaced the first. We know there were two CIA operatives on scene
in communication with the Washington by phone or some other means. What could they see, where were they? Were they the ones giving conflicting
It seems there are four options on the table. For a few hours there was a hellfire on site and from what I understand an AC-130 within range which is
a proverbial sledgehammer trying to hit flies and there is a rapid response team still hours away. There is always a fourth option but I can't say
what it would be.
Last question would be did the two generals that were with the POTUS recommend a strike of any sort which from reports I know they said they were not
willing to send in more Americans without better Intel. You should really look up the Battle of Mogadishu. In my opinion Benghazi had eerie
similarities as far as environment, temperament of locals, what the mission objective would have been, and equipment. The differences that stand out
is in Mogadishu we had the benefit of planning and recon Intel in the area but it still went to hell. I definitely agree we could have done things
different in Benghazi but I also know if done incorrectly things would have gone from bad to worse to put it lightly.
You see I do not care what political side anyone is on and these are the questions I have about Benghazi. My mind is far from being made up on the
issue of course I do not watch the news so I haven’t been blasted by the hyperbole that’s been put out there. My information comes from articles
and threads on the web because I am out of the country. I generally do not take anything as factual on this until I have seen it in two or three
different sources so in a way I am insulated from this and probably see it a different way than most in the US.
Anyway I hope this explains a little of where I am coming from on this. I always get out of the country during elections I just send in my absentee
ballot before leaving and escape the political madness.
edit on 29-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: add
edit on 29-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)