Posted on 11/02/2012 9:23:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
While the State Department waits for a review board to determine how attackers were allowed to kill four Americans in Libya, and following a new timeline of events from the CIA, an expert in the kinds of operations that kept many more from dying in Benghazi dismisses much of the resulting criticism.
Interagency bureaucracy may have prevented forces in Benghazi from relaying their situation to the CIA or Pentagon, but the attack did not last long enough for Washington to have been able to do anything, says Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL and special operations sniper course manager.
The CIA released a prepared statement Thursday with a more detailed timeline of events, according to the Washington Post, showing rescue efforts took place over only a few hours.
Webb, now editor-in-chief of SOFREP.com, says efforts of the special operations team that responded to the consulate compound are more important that bureaucratic criticism.
"Any time you have State, CIA and other agencies, and its not an established theater, that's part of the problem itself," he says. Communication in an attack like this may have been coordinated more fluently in Afghanistan or Iraq, he says, where established military forces are well versed in their chain of command.
"By the nature of the work they do, these intelligence groups are totally compartmentalized, and that creates a complication," he says. "By nature, CIA doesn't share information with [the Department of Defense]. For military support, it would have been a while before they could figure out what was going on."
In spite of this, the CIA responders were able to get to the U.S. compound in Benghazi within 25 minutes after the attack, at roughly 9:40 p.m., according to a new CIA statement reported by the Post. This statement offers the most detailed timeline of events since the Sept. 11 attack.
"There was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground, by people at every U.S. organization that could play a role in assisting those in danger," said a senior U.S. intelligence official according to the prepared statement.
Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama for indicating the attack may have been caused by a protest over a YouTube film that criticized Islam. The president subsequently said this was a terrorist attack.
This new assessment says the information coming out of Benghazi during the attack was fragmentary and often contradictory, and the initial information sent to Congress and the White House did not contain conclusions of potential links between the attackers and al Qaeda.
A source familiar with U.S. presence in Libya tells U.S. News the Benghazi attack may have been retribution for prior special operations missions there. The source asked to remain anonymous.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and computer expert Sean Smith were already dead before the response team could do anything, Webb points out, adding much of the resulting coverage has not focused on who is still alive.
"It's pretty amazing that a small group of former and active Special Operations personnel were able to successfully rescue what was likely up to 50 people and get sensitive materials out of the other compound," Webb says of the rescue efforts and retreat to the CIA annex nearby at roughly 11 p.m.
"They did this with limited resources and under austere circumstances," he says. "The CIA, and those operators should be commended for this."
After sustaining waves of mortar attacks, another team was able to secure transportation to a nearby airport, and with Libyan security elements, help rescue survivors at 5:15 a.m.
News agencies, including a scathing Fox News assessment, point to readily available resources that the U.S. government chose not to deploy to help Americans on the ground.
However, there would be no motivation for the CIA, the Department of Defense, the State Department or the White House to withhold these resources, Webb says, aside from first establishing what was actually happening on the ground.
"It wouldn't have been, 'Don't go help,'" he says. "It very likely would have been, 'Hold tight, we need to figure out what's going on.'"
After the rescue group retreated from the consulate to the CIA annex, a security officer on the roof pointed a laser indicator at a rebel mortar team that was shelling the building, a CIA source told Fox News. These mortar rounds eventually killed former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
A Spectre gunship could have used the operator's targeting to take out the mortar team, employing a common tactic with special operations troops, the source says, if the Pentagon or CIA had chosed to deploy it.
But this engagement at the CIA annex would have been far within "danger close" parameters, Webb says, referencing the zone within 600 meters of friendly troops into which only the most experienced air combat controllers can direct aerial strikes. Given the description of the attack, the mortar team must have been within a few hundred feet, he says, and among many noncombatants.
He also dismisses any claims that balking at support was a political maneuver due to the upcoming presidential election.
"Anyone in the chain of command would have had no issue stomping out this fire, and getting those Americans out of Libya," he says.
Sources familiar with embassy security tell U.S. News the Benghazi compound was not a protected diplomatic mission like most U.S. installations worldwide. It did not, for example, have the roof hatch that could have allowed Stevens and the other Americans to escape. These have been standard issue on all diplomatic compounds since a group of militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979.
Learn more about the current state of embassy security here.
Ahead of the State Department conclusions, Webb says both communications and security could have been better.
"That's always been an issue," he says.
The State Department declined to comment, pending the independent board investigation findings.
Oops. Too pissed off to write clearly.
“... thousands [of dead] and maimed Troops...”
There is a precedent of sorts, Wake Island
The Marines and contractor forces on Wake were not relieved. By some accounts, help was dispatched and recalled. The story is that there was not adequate and timely help tp prevent the inevitable loss.
FDR was apparently not involved in the decision, it was the CINCPAC.
Wake is really not a valid precedent though. Although there were cables and other warnings of the deteriorating situation, there was not constant voice and video communication. There were no major installations just hours away. There were no lawyers controlling the military’s every action. There were no lawyers holding the CIA leash.
It will boil down to a decision based on what was percieved as legal rather than what was right . The American legal profession is very high up, near the top, of America’s enemies.
A failed rescue attempt would conjure up images of the Carter administration, and possibly hurt Obama's popularity on the eve of the election. I don't think Obama considers saving any American lives worth that risk.
Better to just let them die.
I agree. They can confound and confuse the “during” but the before and after are clear.The main point right now is that people thinking of voting for Obama need to explain to us why we were lied to so publicly and so adamantly for so many days, when they could have just said they were still sorting through. The article weakly tries to excuse the excuses, which might work if the excuses had not gone on for days and days and if the video maker had not been so publicly “disappeared.” They painted a huge target on this guy and they stirred up additional trouble in other areas of the Middle East with this over the top video story. For now, that is a vulnerablity.
U.S. Ambassador being attacked is direct communication to POTUS. Period.
A prayer this situation does not go that way, but you could very well be correct, it perhaps will turn in that direction. Lawyers cause more trouble than the lawyers are worth. Normally boils down to legalities, regrettably, because our nation is a nation of law(s), and the rule of law, or the lack thereof.
The failure to respond was unconscionable, and in a situation where this whole thing happened in a nation, in which Obama illegally involved us in the first place, makes him responsible on multiple bases. We cannot allow this betrayal of American interests by a man who sat in the Pews for 20 years, while his Pastor & spiritual guide, damned America, to continue.
William Flax [Romney/Ryan--Next Tuesday]
No doubt. This is our Nation's first best step. Nothing is going to happen next without this happens first.
After Panetta’s ridiculous statement about live drone feed, ‘just some buildings and lots of chaos (paraphrasing)’, they finally found one former SEAL who would stick his neck out for this admin?
“It wouldn’t have been, ‘Don’t go help,’” he says. “It very likely would have been, ‘Hold tight, we need to figure out what’s going on.’”
So, I don’t see how “Don’t go help” is different. If someone is getting beaten by a mob in the street and we tell them to just wait and see how it plays out it is the same as saying, “Don’t go help.” Sometimes I think they speak a different language than I do.
imho ... not exactly.
Interesting that their site does NOT allow comments (at least that I could find...)
“These comments can be easily refuted based on the news that the State Department was notified by the consulate three hours prior to the attack, that they believed an attack was immenent.”
Which would explain why the drone was overhead already. And I find myself always coming back to this: If they could not do anything, why would they have bothered to paint the enemy mortar team? For shits and giggles. So much of this does NOT add up.
Webb wrote a tribute to Glen Doherty, his good friend who had co-authored a book with him. He’s got skin in this game.
Doesn’t mean what he said was correct, though. This article tries to judge motivations based on Webb’s statements. The article says:
‘However, there would be no motivation for the CIA, the Department of Defense, the State Department or the White House to withhold these resources, Webb says, aside from first establishing what was actually happening on the ground.
“It wouldn’t have been, ‘Don’t go help,’” he says. “It very likely would have been, ‘Hold tight, we need to figure out what’s going on.’”
We can’t assume what the motivations of all those officials were. Webb is saying that the motivation could have been to see what was happening first.
But contingency plans for the MILITARY (and not just the SEALS) include immediately moving assets into position to be able to handle any eventuality. And that standard protocol was interrupted once the head of the mission received the phone call from Stevens and put out the red alert that went out to hundreds of people within the pre-established communications network. If Africom leader had his crew ready as required by the contingency plans and was told not to sent assets to the region it was because somebody aborted the standard protocols before they could be implemented. Somebody DID authorize a drone from Italy to replace the drone that was already in Libya and had been surveilling the area, so Obama directly approved THAT cross-border activity but it’s been claimed that both drones were unarmed. This, even though Stevens had informed Hillary of the Benghazi police taking photos of the inside of the complex that morning. The very fact that there were accurate grenades being launched told everybody that this was a pre-planned attack.
As to whether the rules of engagement would have allowed an armed drone to fire on the people firing the mortars on the CIA annex, we had coordinates for where the mortars were coming from and had the ability to hit with an accuracy of several feet’s distance. I would find it hard to believe that totally unrelated innocent bystanders would simply be wandering around that area in the middle of the night watching the local militant firing mortars at the CIA annex. If these are the rules of engagement we follow when our diplomatic staff are attacked, we may as well just roll over and let them do whatever they want to us. When would anybody EVER be able to use firepower?
The gun that Woods fired was surely fired into the same location as he painted to have air fire, and Woods’ fire wasn’t contained to a very small area since it was flying horizontally rather than being dropped from above. Is Webb saying that Woods as a private contractor was doing what would have been forbidden by military rules of engagement?
I didn’t say that very clearly. The standard protocols would have gone into effect when the head of the mission received the phone call from Stevens and put out the red alert which went out to State Department, Defense Department, White House, etc. The contingency plans would have gone into effect immediately and Obama would have been personally informed immediately. Those contingency plans to move assets in order to be PREPARED for any eventuality were interrupted, and the only person who could interrupt those was Obama. You don’t find out what is going on and THEN prepare for eventualities; by then it’s too late.
Panetta (IIRC) said something about them coming up with plans that fit the 24-hour requirement. What 24-hour requirement are they talking about? I could see a 24-hour requirement as a contingency plan for a protracted hostage situation, but from what everybody has said, the contingency plans for a deadly attack is to immediately move assets to the area to be ready for whatever possible help could be warranted.
IOW, even the language that Panetta used suggests that they were operating according to contingency plans for a HOSTAGE situation, not a deadly attack. IMHO. Somebody correct me if I’m mistaken.
However, the diesel fire doesn’t look like a hostage type situation. If this was a planned hostage scheme to make Obama a hero, it seems like maybe Stevens was supposed to be killed and the others in the complex were supposed to be taken hostage. Or maybe Stevens just died too fast from smoke inhalation instead of being able to be kidnapped as he was dragged out of the building and taken to the hospital that the militia had been guarding.
If the police were casing the complex, they wanted to know where something in particular was. The most valuable thing in the complex was Stevens himself. If they intended to kidnap Stevens they would definitely have wanted to know where he would go in an attack (the safe room) and how to potentially get him out of there. Maybe the smoke was supposed to “smoke him out” to where they could kidnap him.
Hard to say the exact plans, but the stories given don’t match up, that’s for sure.
previous reports that special ops had lazers on position(s) of the terrorists dispels the writers claim (from their source) that our resources from the air would have been unable to sort friend from foe within the battle zone
“but the attack did not last long enough for Washington to have been able to do anything...” (Brandon Webb, “expert”)
This backwards thinking is not a valid excuse for inaction during this attack. Since Washington could not know how long the attack would last, Washington would not know whether it had time or not. Crises must be addressed the moment you learn they exist. Waiting until they are over means you will nearly always be too late. (Actually, competent people divert crises BEFORE they occur).
This type of non-thinking typifies Obama’s executive process; small wonder his administration does nothing. Are they waiting for the recession to end before addressing the jobs problem?
Someone needs to ask the Obama administration if a decision to let the Ambassador and staff fend for themselves HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE before any attack began. Obama did not want U.S. forces fighting on Libyan soil, or dead Muslim photo-ops, and he did not want the CIA arms-for-Syria-via-Turkey operation revealed. He likely sat back and hoped no “newsworthy” casualties would occur, but chose to sacrifice a few “pawns” (in his estimation, not mine) rather than risk escalation.
“...................U.S. intelligence officials tell Fox News there were reports from eyewitnesses in Benghazi on Sept. 11 that an armed militia was gathering three hours before the attack on the consulate began at 9:47 p.m.”
AP: “TRIPOLI, Libya - It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with about 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.
There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.........
“I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don’t know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned,” al-Haddar said. “From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional.”
The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of “God is great,” then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.....”
http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/witnesses-benghazi-attack-was-planned_2012-10-29.html
I'm glad you said that, as it struck me that his words could well be used to say more (or less) than he meant. Often editing and omission is used to restate what someone says and means.
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.