[LoveUSA]

Please explain how "no CBA" is related to an order to "stand down".

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?

[Travis McGee]

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.

[MestaMachine]

Absence of a presidential order to proceed in engaging the enemy disallows such orders to be given at a lower level. Hence the order to stand down. They had no choice.

[greeneyes]

One of the reports stated that the military outside Libya was told to stand down, it is not a terrorist attack.

Also read that Washington seemed to keep changing their mind on whether to send in military or not.