Once a "real" MSM reporter hears about CBA, there is an outside chance one of them might shout the question to Obama.
(Like hell they will. But Jake Tapper might.)
Posted on 11/02/2012 5:45:37 AM PDT by Travis McGee
The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.
Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.
That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.
No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.
On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.
Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.
How might this process have played out in the White House?
If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: “I think we should not go the military action route,” meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed. Another possibility is that the president might have said: “We should do what we can to help them … but no military intervention from outside of Libya.” Those words then constitute “standing orders” all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.
When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.
Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.
Perhaps the president left “no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority” standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don’t yet know where the president was hour by hour.
But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders.
And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.
The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur’s Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.
We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on “loose cannons” or “rogue officers” exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.
When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.
Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “the U.S. military doesn’t do risky things”-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?
General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.
We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.
PJ Media!
You’re metastasizing!
Cool!
Travis McGee, yours truly, was published in PJ Media today.
The title is “Benghazi’s Smoking Gun? Only the President can grant Cross-Border Authority.”
I posted the article on this thread above. The editors at PJ Media chose to focus exclusively on the CBA issue, which is fine with me, it’s their website and I’m glad to be on it, to get the word out about CBA.
However, here is the rest of the essay, as I originally submitted it to them:
/ / / / / / / / / /
General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.
But in any event, Ambassador Stevens going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. The ribbon cutting at the new Benghazi school cover story is laughably lame. You can bet that given his own input in the matter, Stevens would have told the Turks, “No, 9-11 is not a good day for us,” and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to hyper-dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks insisted on that day, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on an assassination plan as the Judas goat?
Alternatively, the order for Ambassador Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 might have come down our own U.S. chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. His job involved moving between the far more secure embassy complex in Tripoli, the Benghazi “consulate,” and the CIA “annex.” So his orders might have come down either State Department or the CIA channels. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sent him his final instructions, and copies of those orders still exist, to be discovered on computer hard drives by future historians.
Ambassador Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi “consulate” on 9-11 screams out to me of a deliberate setup. The Turkish “diplomats” (or arms shipment middlemen) left the meeting after dark and perhaps flashed their headlights to the Al Qaeda attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, “The Amriki ambassador is there, with minimal security—proceed with the attack plan.” But that is pure speculation on my part. (The smoking gun clue will be the official CIA or State Department message ordering him to Benghazi on 9-11, perhaps using the preposterous “school opening” as a cover story for his later meeting with the Turks.)
I leave that for future investigators and historians. What I know for certain is that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority. And that sword of authority belongs 100 percent to President Obama. No weasel words or smokescreens should be allowed to cloud that very basic truth.
President Obama owns cross-border authority, so he owns the failure to rescue the American heroes who were fighting for their lives in Benghazi for seven hours. More than a hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella just two hours away for the launch order that never came.
Semper Fidelis, President Obama?
There really is no doubt as to what happened.
This was supposed to be Obama’s Iranian hostage crisis for him to ride in on his white horse to save the day right before election.
It didn’t work for Carter, and Obama obviously failed to learn from history.
In the absence of answers, people are left with speculation.
I speculate that Obama was directly involved with conspiracy to commit high treason. Why else would you decrease security to the point of non-existence when the situation dictated the exact opposite?
Regardless of who was involved in orchestrating the situation and actions both before and during the attack, The blood of American soldiers and diplomats is indisputably on Obama’s hands.
I also find our mainstream media complicit in this for their failure to seek justice.
I thought Eric and Geraldo were going to get into fisticuffs this morning. Geraldo was trying to say there was no drone much less live feed and the Army isn’t prepared to go on a mission like a SWAT team. What a frickin idiot. He’s worse than Chrissy Mathews and his tingle.
Great article.
Ive been comparing this to an AP article I read earlier:
This plays well with the posted article. A response did indeed come from the CIA and any available assets in Libya. That is the catch right there. The only people to respond were already in Libya, which gives footing to the idea that CBA was not granted.
Once a "real" MSM reporter hears about CBA, there is an outside chance one of them might shout the question to Obama.
(Like hell they will. But Jake Tapper might.)
The problem with this issue is that the water has become so muddied with peripherals (ranging from stupid YouTube videos to who was informed when through what sort of medium) that no one can establish a clear focus of blame unless they follow everything that’s been put out there.
The beauty of your piece (either version, IMHO) is that it breaks the issue down to the nut:
1) guys we’re dying, and asking for help
2) the only one who could help them (by issuing a CBA) was the POTUS
3) he didn’t.
End of story, end of case against the bucket-of-manure in charge.
Congratulations on your article! Great job.
That, plus his "rock star" entourage with him really P.O.d the troops. Troops, living in filth get pretty course (to say the least). So prior to climbing onto a helo for his lift out, one of the renvenge-minded troops put some kind of nasty dung on the palm of his glove, and "glad-handed" Geraldo with a big hand shake grip, then let go and grinned. Geraldo had the big $#!++y hand, climbing into his helo. Courtesy of the U.S. Army, who really, really hated him then. I'm not surprised this dork hasn't a clue about the U.S. Army's capabilities and constant training to conduct "non-combatant evacuation operations" (NEO). Hey Geraldo, $#!+ hand to you, my not-brother.
Awesome article ~!
Congrats on PJM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly. There are a million rotten strands to pull in this horror story, but CBA is a clear up-down, yes-no type of litmus test. Provable either ways. If he granted CBA, there is ready proof. Show the orders. No orders, no CBA, no rescue, and it came only from the POTUS, since he and he alone “owns” CBA.
I posted this comment on the PJ Media thread, and I think it bears posting here:
/ / / / / / / / / / / / /
The current “blame CIA” story linked above by Scandia Recluse is part of the White House’s obfuscation effort. More smoke. (I am counting Hillary as being part of the Obama/Jarrett/Axlerod/Michelle team that is actually directing the nation.)
The point is not the percent of CIA compared to State Dept in Benghazi, or how soon they went from the annex to the consulate on the initial rescue attempt. Or how soon the guys from Tripoli got there. Putting the spotlight on the CIA for a few days buys the White House more time, a few days, an eternity just days before an election.
But don’t go for the Magician’s feint: “Look at the bad CIA!” Keep your eye on the ball, which is the lack of outside military rescue, which was waiting to go in Sigonella for many hours of the seven hour battle of Benghazi. At any time Obama could have granted CBA and the rescue force would be inbound. It’s important to note that the flying time from either Tripoli or Sigonella to Benghazi are the same. So why make a big issue of when the CIA contractors left Tripoli on a chartered flight? (As we know, they were already “in country” and not bound by CBA rules.)
By the time the six CIA “shooters” from Tripoli finally arrived at the annex in Benghazi, they should have been met by a hundred Force Recon Marines, who already had the situation well in hand, with USN and USAF assets controlling the high ground clear up to space and satellites.
Getting side-showed by the CIA’s puny ad-hoc and chartered “rescue assets” in Tripoli is ridiculous. Keep your eye on the main thing, the rescue that didn’t happen, by the entire U.S. military that was ready, willing and able to go, on a moment’s notice, the minute the POTUS granted an execute order including CBA.
If he had done it, we would know it, because the White House could produce the orders. If they existed. No execute order, no CBA, no rescue mission.
big bump
Thanks
In my mind they are two separate commands, since the stand down order was given to potential rescuers inside Libya.
Was the order to stand down an effort to save additional lives by thwarting a rescue attempt that would ultimately never see air support? If that's the case, wouldn't the order to stand down include mention that no CBA was given?
Excellent!
btt
“The only people to respond were already in Libya, which gives footing to the idea that CBA was not granted.”
And SOMEONE made the deicision to use only in-country assets. At the least the media should find out, and report, who that was.
There did not have to be a “stand down” order given to the troops ready to go in Sigonella. Simply by not affirmatively giving an execute order for those troops to conduct the mission into Libya, by not granting CBA, the military rescue mission is aborted by default.
If Obama just mumbled something about, “We should help those guys somehow” and went upstairst to bed, the rescue never happens, CBA is never granted, the troops on Sigonella wait until long after it’s all over the next day.
No “stand down” order was ever given. Obama just didn’t order the rescue mission or grant CBA.
So you can see what a big like by omission it is to say, “The White House never ordered a stand-down.”
They didn’t have to! All they had to do was NOT affirmatively order the rescue or grant CBA.
Great job Travis, only one minor point. It has now been reported that Carter Ham was actually in Washington DC on 9/11, which adds yet another twist into this ongoing scandal.
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.