I've been looking for a good point to bring those back up. Now, I'm probably not very good at conspiracy theories. But I can't help but think that those thousands of missing MANPADs figure into this. I'm just not sure how.
What if the CIA knows that large numbers of the MANPADs are in AQ / terrorist hands, in Libya? Might not that make close-in air support highly risky? Is that what Petraeus and Panetta can't say? Maybe if they say, it is considered too politically explosive to admit? Or it might blow an ongoing CIA operation?
The ongoing operation was already blown.
There are a lot of posts on the subject on FReerepublic. Maybe some of the knowledgeable posters will elaborate.
A little more far out speculation: As the attack unfolded, the CIA or other intelligence discovered or reasoned that the attack was in fact bait, designed to bring in U.S. support aircraft. An AC-130 shot down in Libya would sure blow Obama’s foreign policy narrative!!!
(By no means do I accept that this excuses the lack of action. But I do think that this bunch at the top is likely to be too incompetent and / or locked into their own view of things to respond to such a situation.)
Man-portable air-defense systems have been around for a long time and are plentiful all over the world already.
This link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_systems, lists a number of attacks that have happened over the years.
Dealing with hostile fire is a core part of military actions and the U.S. military is the best there is.
I think the last decade provides ample evidence that, given the order to do so, the U.S. military would have gotten the job done if it was possible.
What stopped them was the the President refusing to give the order.
The retired Lt. Col. caller to Rush today clarified the chain of command for civilians like me who would not be aware of the details. According to that interview, within minutes of the alarm sounding that an Ambassador was in peril, the President would be asked to approve rescue operations.