Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nachum; Cindy; G8 Diplomat; AdmSmith; Dog; nuconvert; Straight Vermonter; dervish; ...

All of this is secondary to the essential question:

Why was the SST (Site Security Team) sent away at the end of August without any comparable security left on station?

The SST was paid for by DOD funds, so no excuse there, they were free to the Dept of State for one year with another year extension if requested. No request or review was made by State. The SST, to a man, had offered to stay deployed another three months, but were rejected and went home.

The lack of security, heavy weapons capable, is the defining reason for the attack.

BTW, all comments regarding why we didn’t relieve Benghazi with other rapid response forces fail to understand the mission-driven nature of all our military.

Any relieving force at Benghazi would have to be capable of night-vision and HRST:

http://www.combatindex.com/store/MCWP/Sample/GROUND_COMBAT_OPERATIONS/MCRP_3-11_4A.pdf

and have CH-47 (Phrogs) mission capable of insertion.

There were only three - company sized units available. Two were committed to relief of the embassies in Cairo and Khartoum and the other to the AfPak theater.


4 posted on 11/04/2012 7:47:43 AM PST by gandalftb (The art of diplomacy says "nice doggie", until you find a bigger rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: gandalftb

You’re assuming this was an attack to overrun and seize the two locations. It looks more like a raid to me. The first thing in either situation is to gain fire superiority and suppress the attackers fire. You can do that from the air. And if the only way to get help there is by roping in from a helicopter, then we’ve sure bought a lot of parachutes for no reason.


7 posted on 11/04/2012 8:01:25 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: gandalftb
BTW, all comments regarding why we didn’t relieve Benghazi with other rapid response forces fail to understand the mission-driven nature of all our military. Any relieving force at Benghazi would have to be capable of night-vision and HRST: http://www.combatindex.com/store/MCWP/Sample/GROUND_COMBAT_OPERATIONS/MCRP_3-11_4A.pdf and have CH-47 (Phrogs) mission capable of insertion. There were only three - company sized units available. Two were committed to relief of the embassies in Cairo and Khartoum and the other to the AfPak theater.

The U.S. Military is capable of taking on several missions simultaneously. Multiple units train for these types of missions, including navy battle groups and amphibious assault groups with their embedded marine component, who have to be certified for NEO. The exact disposition of relief forces has not been disclosed. However, if the reports that General Ham and others had forces ready to go and he was seeking final approval are correct, then this assertion does not hold water. Neither the Pentagon nor the Obama administration has claimed that the forces need to provide relief in Benghazi were employed elsewhere.

This went on for 7 hours, which allowed for plenty of opportunity to respond.

14 posted on 11/04/2012 9:09:24 AM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson