Options in Benghazi (20 year Former Spook)

To the surprise of many, the topic of Benghazi--and what might have been done to save the four Americans who died there--never really surfaced in last night's Presidential debate. GOP challenger Mitt Romney apparently made the decision to take the high road and avoid a slug-fest over the issue.

And that's unfortunate, because the decision-making that accompanied the debacle in Beghanzi deserves some sort of public airing. Almost two months after the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, President Obama has never explained what he knew of the attack, and his actions that followed. That irony hung over Monday's debate, and answers to those questions will be postponed until after the election, when some congressional committee or blue-ribbon panel releases their report, months or years down the road.

Meanwhile, there are new concerns over what was--and wasn't done--during those desperate hours in Benghazi. CBS News aired a segment over the weekend on military options that might have been available during the attack on the consulate. Readers will note that the segment ran on the network's Saturday morning news show, one of its lowest-rated programs. From Sharyl Atkisson's report:

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle. The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies." But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

News about Predator surveillance of the battle had been making the rounds for several days before the CBS segment aired. But information about "other" reconnaissance aircraft is rather intesting; to our knowledge, Ms. Atkisson's report is the first to confirm that other U.S.aircraft were monitoring the battle.

As to which aircraft, there are a number of options. American reconnaissance aircraft routinely patrol the Mediterranean, including Air Force RC-135 and Navy EP-3 signals intelligence aircraft. In the EUCOM theater, RC-135s operate from RAF Mildenhall in the UK, while EP-3s have long been based at Souda Bay, Crete. Scrambled from those locations, an EP-3 or RC-135 could have been off the Libyan coast in two or three hours, providing additional coverage of communications between terrorist elements involved in the attack. However, it is unlikely these assets were sitting alert, and any reporting from these platforms likely came from previously scheduled missions that coincided with the consulate attack.

Other recon possibilities include U-2 aircraft and Global Hawk UAVs. U-2 pilots have been flying over Libya--off and on--for decades. In years past, U-2s on Mediterranean missions have operated from Lajes Field in the Azores and an RAF base on Crete. Given the amount of time required to prep a U-2 pilot (and jet) for a mission, any coverage by that platform would have involved an aircraft already slated for a Libyan mission, or re-routed from other tasking in the region. As for the Global Hawk, it can remain over a target, at high altitude, for more than 24 hours, relaying information to ground stations in the U.S. and Europe.

Whatever platforms were overhead, they added to the overall surveillance picture emanating from Benghazi. As we've noted previously, there was no shortage of information available to decision-makers in Washington, DC (and elsewhere). Command nodes at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department--along with various military headquarters--had access to the information, which included urgent SIGINT reporting, relayed by the National Security Agency (NSA), from airborne and ground-based listening posts focused on the Middle East.

According to Fox News military analyst (Ret) Colonel David Hunt, we also had a steady stream of information from inside the consulate, thanks to an open microphone in the radio room. Members of the consulate staff provided a virtual play-by-play of the assault, which continued even after terrorists stormed the compound. Urgent radio traffic from Benghazi was monitored continuously at the State Department and likely available at the White House and Pentagon as well. That information, along with FLASH/CRITIC messages from NSA, provided early details of what was going on inside the diplomatic compound--and what terrorists involved in the attack were saying. And when the Predator arrived, there was a continuous video stream as well--also available to decision-makers in Washington, including the Commander-in-Chief.

Simply stated, Mr. Obama and his national security team had a pretty good idea of what was going on at the consulate in Benghazi, and the arrival of each reconnaissance asset provided more details. So, given the relatively high degree of granularity, what were our military options, and why was no action taken?

The first challenge was targeting, and the whereabouts of American personnel. Clearly, no one wanted to launch cruise missiles into Benghazi or send manned aircraft to bomb targets as long as our diplomatic personnel and the former Navy SEALs couldn't be accounted for. But as time wore on, it became apparent that all were dead, and fratricide was no longer a concern. Why not launch a counter-strike?

The first question is what do you hit, and what are the available assets? There is obvious reluctance to launch aircraft into an environment where the bad guys can't be clearly identified; in Iraq and Afghanistan, attacks against U.S. interests often attracted large groups of civilian on-lookers. Without being able to separate by-standers from the bad guys, attack aircraft, gunships and even armed drones will stay out of the fray. Clearly, no one in Washington wanted a collateral damage incident on top of the embassy disaster.

There's also the matter of getting assets to Benghazi in a timely manner. AC-130U gunships were reportedly stationed at NAS Sigonella (on Sicily); with its on-board weaponry, "Spectre" can deliver a devastating volume of fire against ground targets with precision accuracy, and remain overhead for extended periods (in a favorable air defense environment. The distance from Sigonella to Benghazi is about 420 miles, about two hours' flying time for an AC-130. But once again, it takes time to get an aircraft and crew prepped and briefed for such a mission, particularly if they weren't sitting alert at the time.

The same holds true for U.S. Air Force F-16s from Aviano AB in northern Italy. The distance from that base to Benghazi is just over 1,000 miles, a little under two hours' flight time for the Vipers (this assumes sub-sonic flight, to conserve fuel. Still, it would take several hours to round up the crews, brief them for the mission, prep the aircraft and launch the mission. And, unless the mission planning team at Aviano had good imagery of the compound--with mensurated coordinates--there was a higher probability that the precision weapons dropped by the F-16s would miss. It's also worth remembering that the F-16 flight would require tanker support, necessitating coordination of more support elements.

This is not to say the U.S. was without options. The assault on the consulate dragged on for roughly seven hours, and two of the Americans (most likely, the former SEALs) were still alive six hours into the firefight. As other observers have noted, we managed to get an unarmed Predator overhead for the final phases of the battle, and other recon platforms were also on-scene. The relatively long tead time between the start of the attack and its final throes (seemingly) provided enough time for some sort of kinetic option.

And our options weren't limited to the AC-130s out of Sigonella or the F-16s from Aviano. It would be interesting to know the location of our nearest carrier battle group on September 11, 2012, for a couple of reasons. First, carriers maintain F/A-18s on alert around the clock, and it's easier to convert them to an attack role (and get them off the deck) instead of rounding up F-16 crews at Aviano. A carrier group over the central Med would also have the ability to maintain a continuous air presence over Benghazi, facilitating rescue, recovery and reinforcement operations.

But no one will say if a carrier group was in the area that night. And even if it wasn't, there were other naval assets available. We refer to surface vessels armed with cruise missiles, capable of reaching Libya from a range of over 1,000 miles. Like air-dropped precision weapons, TLAMs need precise intel for maximum effectiveness. But the U.S. already had an extensive TLAM targeting base for Libya, the product of our air campaign against Qadhafi a year before. With that information--and the system's rapid re-targeting capabilities--a cruise missile laydown could have been launched against the terrorists in the latter stages of the consulate attack.

According to media accounts, "various" military actions were considered and rejected, leaving the Americans in Benghazi on their own. In retrospect, there were no "optimum" actions for the situation in Benghazi, but the U.S. was not without options. Of course, it became more difficult to reach a consensus after the Commander-in-Chief went to bed, before the battle was over.

Just catching up on Benghazi email threads. My head is exploding, and I hardly know where to begin.

Thanks for pings. Please keep them coming!

Still having many problems with FR---pulling up threads and refreshing. It has made adding any helpful post to advance the story impossible.

Re: Maggie's schedule for Hillary (9/11/12, 12pm, meet with Panetta & Donilon at the WH) and her comment:"They knew before it happened, IMO, perhaps even orchestrated “protests” to cover the arms running to Syria."

Freeper PieterCasparzen posted a vanity thread that received some excellent replies, but I wanted to draw your attention to two posts worthy of some thought and consideration by Freeper Jumper on that thread:

From Jumper To: PieterCasparzen --- Post 25

I was working for the Dept of State (DoS), when the Obama team took control and Hillary took charge, performing information management duties.

The following is an educated guess as to what happened, how it happened, and what the probable motives from a US operational standpoint as I see the administration in its execution of American Interests abroad...

The administration implemented Social Media under the operational control of Public Affairs. This consisted of using each embassy/consulate as a Internet focal point to enlist local nationals from the host country as friends, using Face Book and other media such as Twitter, or whatever the popular alternative was within that country or region.

The Administration utilized Twitter to mobilize its voters in 2008, again in 2010, and transferred the campaigns direct operation control operators into the DoS Public Affairs leadership. They have stood up a major operation using a building adjacent to Main State in DC and it is from there that global operations are contemplated, then farmed out to the local offices.

During my last tour before going into Brazil as an IT guy or what we call a communicator, I was sent to the PA and asked to assist them, unofficially of course, but as a professional courtesy to help the PA folks with their IT problems if they arise. What they asked was nothing out of the ordinary, however, they did try to enlist gage my interest, and being a good State person I knew to feign excitement so that they felt more comfortable in closing the sales pitch to a like minded ally in the field.

The crux of Public Affairs operations is that they can do several things, one of which is to FLASH information to subscribers, another to alert Americans in country, and they can stir the pot which is the ultimate goal of PA ops, e.g., influence local opinion.

The US Department of State FLASHED to the Islamic world the VIDEO INSULT and this is where the story grew legs.

Anyone investigating this Administration (Incident) needs to start right across the street from Main State and get those files and the list of people who worked in PA in both DC and within the consulates/embassies. This will expose the ugly truth. The Video story was planted in the local countries to support a narrative. That narrative never was ment to be internally political to the President but for the Country engaged in activities linked to overall US Mid East Policy.

This was a excellent cover for the Gun Running Operation that blew up and if anything the fall out will be minimal as it was probably not illegal to deal with Al Quada affiliates to run guns from Libyas former military into Syria/Lebanon/the Saini, etc. Unless of course the president in his duality role representing America as a practitioner of Islam/Islamic upbringing in those parts of the world is not credible - which I believe today is the case and thus Romney will replace Obama.

We gave the War on Terror an Islamic President which during whose tenure Islam failed to grasp the opportunity to work with America; they will now have to deal with another Christian Representative who will have less credibility than Obama had in his upbringing, but through strength Romney and America will no longer coddle Islam as was official US policy the past 4-years. It was all coordinated to give Islam a chance, and they missed that Olive Branch from the Executive Branch. God help them.

This entire State Department (Langley Boys Sp Op) and Public Affairs (can you say sister agency again?) blew up. The Ambassador was not what he appeared, nor was the Consulate manned to handle Counselor Affairs which is the primary function of said missions abroad.
*************************

From Jumper to Just mythoughts; don-o; silverleaf--- Post 37

I have no official knowledge and am only trying to piece together things I have read in the news or in comments here and other conservative sources. My work allowed me to see CHANGE but none of that change was inherently a mysterious or bad thing but rather embracing technology, openly.

Based on something someone wrote somewhere about the State Department/Administration sending this information out to the locals in different countries was the basis for the FLASH comment. Seeing that the consulate was not much of an operation or performing traditional functions I am familiar with diplomacy/consulate operations is my belief it was not fully staffed or yet in the actual role of a consulate; maybe they send in counselor officers as needed?

My "Theory" that Stevens was not what he appeared is due to something I read this morning that he was the point man for dealing with the opposition forces and securing the Libyan military's equipment for export to Syrian rebels... thru an AQ franchise leader none the less, and arms had gotten out of control of where the US wanted them - then Stevens was appointed Ambassador.... The video was just something all Planners would keep in the card deck to use as needed. Contingency planning and marketing your programs is the name of the game.

I do not believe the cover up was meant to blow up in the National Media Stateside but then this is an election year and oftentimes within the Senate/Congressional Committees betrayal happens as payback - hence I believe the current blowback to the Administration. Just as the Dem's used Iran-Contra some well placed Republicans have repaid that small favor.

As for the US doing nothing, it does not serve the Nation while at War to comprise our capabilities for surveillance which has now been made public in the press, e.g., by extension of telling the world it was watched in real time and this is the reason no help was sent; had help arrived it would have tipped our hand if in fact it is true the situation was monitored - or - the reason no help arrived was so the entire operation to smuggle arms would disappear along with any loose ends. It is an ugly game on the world stage being exploited in failure to the detriment of the Administration. However if any dealing with AQ is true then that will be interesting to see answered and dealt with as well.

My "theory" on Obama being seen as a Muslim or Islamic product in the ME is beneficial to our relations, hence Obamas repeated comments on "his" credibility.... I think Obama was not so much elected but very astutely put into the presidency by "American Interests" to give the Islam world a chance to make amends and play nice; the fact that they have not does allow any more time to lose as has been oft repeated "past four years"; it is therefore time for the Bad Cop to replace the Good Cop in American towards the Islamic world. Romney will take that good will gesture of having Obama preside over our Nation off the table and they will see the Sword of America come screaming down on them like an Eagle from on High.

And no, I do not think the video had any government connection but rather it was a crass attempt to whip up hysteria by Obama's team.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you haven't listened to Brian Lilley's 9/12/2012 12-minute video he described as "The Misplaced Outrage Over Riots in the Muslim World" posted by TigersEye, it is informative.

1) As we have known but is reconfirmed here with primary evidence, the Cairo protests were organized as a protest to release the Blind Sheik, complete here with interview with the Blind Sheik's son. Brian states that CNN has this video (as does all CNN affiliates), but they have never aired it. [reminder: Lilley's report is broadcast on 9/12/2012]

2)Libya attack was retaliation for drone strike on al Libi

[MestaMachine has been reminding us of these facts, including pointing to the al Zawahiri video calling for attacks prior to 9/11]

At minute 8, Lilley has an interview with MEMRI:

"This garbage, bigoted movie was there for months until the Egyptian media began to stir it up a week before Sept 11. This is the media whose editors in chief were appointed newly by the MB leadership by President Morsi."

Lilley: "I also understand that the Egyptian media were also talking weeks before Sept 11 that there would be a protest to free the Blind Sheik and that that's what the protest would be about, Correct?

MEMRI: Right, The campaign for that has been running for a long time. Mr. Morsi has vowed to do everything possible to free him in a very well known speech where he accepted his nomination, so to speak.... The MB had the audacity, today, after yesterday's events, to call for a demonstration."
*************************

Now think of Jumper's theory and those early timed releases by the State Dept (now scrubbed) apologizing for the video before the Cairo protest had even begun and the constant repetition of the video as embassy protests spread throughout the world.

Remember: They always try to kill as many birds as possible with one stone.

Hillary laughing off emails as ‘Facebook accounts’ on FOX right now. She actually Laughed!! I wonder what is so funny about 4 dead Americans and AQ flags flying on our embassies and AQ bragging on Facebook and twitter that they killed Americans with little problem?

Hillary's past is catching up with her like an avalanche---worthy of a Greek "tragedy."

A couple points in Hillary's brief Benghazi comments from Brazil:

1) "We are holding ourselves accountable to the American people because, not only they, but our brave diplomats and development experts serving in dangerous places around the world deserve no less."

2) "The independent Accountability Review Board [independent, lol] is ALREADY hard at work looking at everything, not cherry-picking, you know, one story here or one document there, but looking at everything, which I HIGHLY recommend (starts faux, condescending laughing---tip from Joe Biden?) as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this."

She sounded nearly giddy.

3) By the time she mentioned Facebook and finished cackling, she was already in full-blown spin and couldn't stop herself.

4) "What I keep in mind is that 4 brave Americans were killed....find out what happened...fix...and bring those to justice who committed these murders....very confident we will achieve those goals."

Bolton's real-time response on Fox, "I'm shocked by the Secretary's approach here, as if this is, sort of, an academic exercise, and I think these emails reveal a fundamental breakdown in handling the attack in real-time....It's a mistake to look at this historically, to look back....The judgment we should make about the Adm's performance is, What were the decision makers doing in real time....?"

Much later in same Fox program, Lindsey Graham interviewed about emails. "My question becomes now, "Why wasn't the Counter-terrorism group activated? There are working groups within our government whose job it is to deal with terrorist incidents. Why wasn't some terrorist working group activated, advising the president of how can we help these 4 people?

And why did we not have any military assets or CIA assets positioned on 9/11, of all dates, to come to the aid of these people for over 7 hours."

It [emails] makes the statement of President Obama that my adm will share every detail with the American public untrustworthy. This Adm is stonewalling."
*********************

It's all coming back now to the facts and statements originally made by Col David Hunt. Now we learn of the emails, but what we learned in Hunt's interview is that there is a real-time paper/audio/photo/video trail as wide and long as the Mississippi.

IMO, nothing is as important as these questions except for the gun-running weapons operations they were/are trying to hide.

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.