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.
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.
You don't know that, the beaten zone from his MG could have been quite small.
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.
Screw the non-combatants if there were any. Anyone still around after 10-20 minutes should've been a target. An AC130 can shoot closer to friendlies than 600 meters. And if you are going to die without fire support I'd take it inside the ECR. (expected casualty radius)