Posted on 10/29/2012 4:44:27 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Now we know that to be a lie because they had "real-time" email, voice comms, and even a drone overhead. But say that were true, consider the following:
1. No matter how good the intel, our combatants can never be sure of the outcome when going into a hostile situation. The fact we have little to ZERO intel where IED's are placed on roadways in theater is one example. There are always countless other unknowns - think about a simple patrol in a town and how often our Troops are ambushed or how we recently lost some 20 SEALS and others from one raghead with an RPG. Where was the intel on those?
2. It is the responsibility of the Armed Forces to deal with such uncertainty, even with the best of intel. That's there damn purpose...to risk there lives for the mission.
3. Even as "cold war" sailor, I knew that sh*t happens and could have been blown out of the water at anytime by a Russian submarine even with all our counter measures.
4. Tell the SEALS, Delta, Rangers, Marine Recon, Air Force ground air controllers, not to mention the regular infantry grunt, they shouldn't bother because there is no guarantee they will come home alive or whole.
4. Yes, there is "fog of war". So then I guess we should never engage unless sure of the outcome.
Does Panetta think every military operation has perfect intel which can predict a positive casualty free outcome? Tell that to the countless troops who have come home dead or limbless! Sheesh! What a lame excuse. I would bet there are countless military that would have joined the fight no matter what the intel to save an Ambassador of the USA.
I may be wrong, but send in whatever assets no matter how far and at least attempt to help no matter the outcome. And this idea of not sending in aircraft to at least strafe the area in fear of killing civilians is abhorrent to me. When did we start letting our Ambassadors die in fear that some stupid civilians in the area may get killed? Oh right, September 11, 2012. That kind of mentality would have lost us WWII.
Last thought: The idea that we shouldn't intrude on Libyan air space is a joke. Obambi had no problem with sending in bombers to assist the great Arab Spring in Libya.
End really pis*ed off rant.
Start with the removal of Gaddafi and control of the Libyan National Bank. The truth is that we were (and are) supplying weapons to both sides fighting for control of Libya (and Egypt and...), and they are playing just as dirty as we are.
The problem is that we have to support them enough to ensure the winner keeps their promise to allow the RULING ELITE access to their hidden caches of gold.
Our CIA (Defense Clandestine Agency???) is buying weapons from one side and selling them to the other. Half the weapons came for the US and half from Iran.
It's all a very nasty business, and OBAMA and HILLARY couldn't win if they tried. Valerie Jarrett controls Obama, and her job is to keep US FORCES from interfering in the NATION BUILDING of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, over in the middle east and in Africa.
Dec. 21, 2012. Will Valerie Jarrett announce the overthrow of the US Government ?
“Ministry of Truth”.
There's a passage in Mila 18 (Warsaw Ghetto uprising) in which a German commander in Warsaw is trying to explain to his superior why, given the German view of Jews, he is having so much trouble suppressing the uprising.
The Won finds himself in a similar situation, trying to avoid admitting that the "Arab Spring", whether by accident or design, has gone horribly wrong with respect to Western interests.
(Those of us with 1% of a clue knew from the beginning that it was "by design")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.