It’s hard to square this with the official story:
The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.
Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.
There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.
Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.
So if so, who did it? Because whoever did killed those men.
“Because whoever did killed those men.”
I’m not commenting on the linked story, just on your words, Rand. Interesting moral calculus there. Lets walk through other terrorist attacks, and figure out who the real killers are. Who killed 17 Americans on the USS Cole? Using your moral calculus, I suppose a crew member on Cole killed 17 of their crewmates., right? Or was it an admiral? Or was it the President? And who killed 241 US Marines and other US servicemen in the Beirut barracks attack? Using your moral calculus, I suppose it was one of their fellow US Marines. Or was it a general? Or was it the President?
You really ought to read the linked article.
The one thing your examples don’t have with Benghazi is that there was not someone at the highest level of American government refusing to aid those under attack while the attack was taking place, lie about it afterwards, and scapegoat an American citizen and arrest them.
*don’t have in common
I’m still not ready to make that leap (using the GLD means air support was overhead). I’ve read Blackfive’s assessment, and no doubt he understands the circumstances for using a GLD and when it would be used. But it is still a circumstantial explanation for their being supporting air assets that didn’t fire. Going on a limb, its not hard for me to believe that in frustration, the former SEALs painted the target just to drive home the point that they could do it, and if only someone provided support, they could get out alive.
In these situation, things that people would not normally do, people do. Consider Mike Murphy, who walked into the clear during a firefight to call in support for his team. It was literally suicidal and did indeed cost him his life; but he did it because doing nothing would likely have ended all their lives, so he sacrificed himself. Painting a target with a GLD, when the mortars are already fairly well zeroed in isn’t much of a risk. It does, however, drive home the point that the security folks had the equipment and capability to direct air support to their assistance, and none was available.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter if the air support was overhead or on the ground an hour’s flight away. They were still ultimately denied those assets, either intentionally or incompetently. There’s not a good excuse for either in this situation.
Cell phones with night vision capabilities?
I think he must mean “with the IR filter removed”…
With the IR filter removed?
My cell phone (android) shows me the flashing IR LED’s on my TV remote when I set it to “camera”. There doesn’t seem to be a filter.
(Also, I’m with Leland – that someone was using a designator doesn’t mean the asset was overhead. Given that we have the assertion that the other side can see the designator, it may well be just an attempt to scare them off.
Plus, remember that even Predator drones don’t always have missiles on them – and a pair of Hellfires isn’t much good against more-than-two attackers spread out.
Contra Bob, note that in the Cole attack, there was nobody there who saw the attack coming and said “naw, let’s just let it happen”.
Likewise the Beirut barracks attack; there was no timeframe for response, no denial of aid.
The entire reason one can say there’s a culpable party beyond the attacker here is the [plausible] presumption that, as Rand said, someone on our side actively said “no, don’t respond” [with air support or special forces].
If that presumption is false, which is looking unlikely as the evidence unfolds, then I believe Rand would be with you in not blaming anyone on Our Side.
If the presumption is true, well… there’s your difference between this and the Cole or Beirut attacks.)
Sigivald, in both cases I cited, someone on our side could have done something, and didn’t. To understand why is probably complicated (and certainly beyond my knowledge) but here’s a start:
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#Rules_of_engagement
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing#Lessons_learned
I don’t think anyone said “Naw, lets just let it happen”, but rather, in all three incidents, it is difficult to know when to pull the trigger.
And yes, I know wikipedia isn’t the greatest source, but it is convenient.
Your links don’t show a similar situation to what was happening during the attack on the consulate.
Also, the lead up to the events are not similar. In neither link did it state that greater security was requested and denied or that intelligence of an impending attack was intentionally ignored.
As described in more detail in the links, petty officers on the Cole wanted to fire on a 2nd boat, and were told not to. The guards at the Marine barracks were issued unloaded weapons (and I think it is a reasonable guess that they would have preferred them to be loaded.) In all three cases, the US military was in the middle east and there was reluctance in the chain of command to use force on the natives, when force (or just a more forceful posture) would have prevented US deaths. The chain of command’s reluctance can be questioned, but I think it is understandable, and saying that they “killed” the people in question, as if they wanted people on our side to die, is obnoxious.
Don’t get your “facts” from Wikipedia Bob.
http://www.history.navy.mil/Special%20Highlights/USSCole/REPORT/INVESTRPT.pdf
http://www.history.navy.mil/Special%20Highlights/USSCole/ENCLOSE/ENL140A.pdf
Leaving someone to die/not giving them the tools and training to live may not be the same as “kill’in them”, but neither is it some high fallut’in moral stand.
Other than Gerrib in the comments of a previous post, I know of no one suggesting anyone but the attackers themselves wanted the Ambassador to die. Negligence or incompetence is not the same as desire.
…saying that they “killed” the people in question, as if they wanted people on our side to die, is obnoxious.
I didn’t do that. I wrote that they were killed, not murdered.
You’re trying to equate improper roe, or “lessons learned”, with the denial of assistance (resulting in death) for political reasons. That’s disgusting, and beneath even you.
It’s Bob’s classic “SQUIRREL!!” strategy to deflect a thread away from Obama whenever possible. He consistently tried to threadjack threads that make Obama look bad. And nothing is beneath him.
As usual, I’m arguing that everyone had good intentions, and as usual, folks here see evil intent. Why my optimism about both Democrats and Republicans (eg “people died, but I don’t think Bush lied”) makes me so horrible, I have no idea. I just don’t think Democrats or Republicans or top military commanders play politics with American lives, and I don’t think anyone except Al Queda killed four Americans in Libya. If you want to politicize this, talk about coverups and spin, but don’t tell me that Americans killed Americans and in the same breath say that nothing is beneath *me*. You’re the ones who are throwing around horrible accusations, not me.
As usual, I’m arguing that everyone had good intentions, and as usual, folks here see evil intent.
Like who? And leave it t a leftist to think that intentions matter.
Of course they had a good intent. Their priority was the reelection of the president. What could be a more noble intent than that?
How can you ask “Like who?” and then say someone prioritized the election over American lives?
And of course intent is what matters here. If you think you’re argument doesn’t hinge on intent (as opposed to, say, competence or wisdom) then please explain it to me.
How can you ask “Like who?” and then say someone prioritized the election over American lives?
That’s different than seeing evil intent. As I said, I’m sure their intent was highly noble — to ensure the reelection of The One.
My point is that no one is claiming (as far as I know) that it was their intent that they be killed. It was just an unfortunate side effect of seeing to the higher good. Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, doncha know?
No. It would be evil to prioritize the election over human life. And you think so too. You’re not even being serious anymore.
(I don’t even see how this helps in the election. I would think the way to win an American Presidential election is go in with guns blazing. Obama’s argument is that he stomps on terrorists, and the omlet/broken eggs argument applies more to civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan. I understand the argument about how a coverup afterward might help in the election, but I don’t see why “denying assistance”, if that’s really what happened, would help win an election.)
No. It would be evil to prioritize the election over human life. And you think so too.
You may believe that. I may, too, though I’d have to give it some thought. What if you thought that losing the election would result in much greater loss of life?
But I’m confident they don’t believe that. I’m sure that they really believe that getting reelected is the highest possible good. Just look at their campaign in general if you don’t agree.
Most everyone has “good intentions.”
But somehow we sometimes get evil results.
Go tell the Spartans.
Who knows why Obama didn’t order the military to help. There were a number of possibilities that would be bad for him politically if he sent in the military. It could have been like blackhawk down, there could have been civilian casualties, it would emphasize the fairy tale of his world view crumbling around his foreign policy decisions.
But Obama said he did order the military to help. So, who didn’t follow orders?
The cover up is astounding. The Obama administration took credit for the ex-seal’s actions when it appears he was disobeying orders. The Obama administration claimed the ex-seal was part of embassy security but he was really working for the CIA hunting down shoulder fired missiles.
I don’t know if Obama’s decisions during the event were to protect his campaign but without a doubt everything that has happened afterward has been one lie after another to protect his campaign. He even went so far as to jail the filmmaker.
Obama keeps saying that he wants to find out what happened just more than anyone else. Obama was in the room watching the live stream and reading the communications. Obama knows exactly what happened but doesn’t want anyone else to.
Obama was in the room watching the live stream and reading the communications. Obama knows exactly what happened but doesn’t want anyone else to.
Or … he wasn’t even though he had the opportunity to. Either way sucks.
To understand why is probably complicated (and certainly beyond my knowledge)
The RoE in Libya was effectively the same as what existed in Beirut in 1983, Yemen in 2000, and in Egypt on the same day as the Libya attack. In Beirut and Yemen, the attacks were bombs. Before the bombs went off, the guards could not respond with live fire. After the bombs went off, there was nothing to attack. In Egypt, nobody opened fire.
If you want to compare Beirut in 1983 and Yemen in 2000, perhaps you should look at the actions of POTUS in the first 48 hours after the attack.
Gregg: Huh. I know “real cameras” all have an IR filter to stop most IR signals from interfering with the visible light signal. I’ve never tested my cell phone camera against an IR signal, and assumed that for image quality reasons they had the same filter.
In any case, even if there is a filter, it’s not all that hard to remove, so it makes little difference; either way a dedicated combatant can detect one.
(My real point with the comment was that it’s not “night vision” on the camera; light-intensifiers don’t let you see IR, and very few cameras on cell phones, if any, are any good at that task in the first place…)
I’m with you, Sigivald; however I did do some research. Apparently, there are YouTube videos explaining how to hack cell phone cameras built in IR detection used for other purposes, such that a person can use them as ad-hoc night vision cameras. I’m not sure how well this works, and I can’t imagine it working that well, but until today I was not something I considered plausible. Further, this is some confusion between a guy who built a really small IR/nightvision system (size of a nickel) that could be built into cellphones and whether cellphone manufacturers actually put in this capability.
Personally, I’m thinking training to only use GLD when necessary is generally good advice to avoid early detection and exposing one’s location. The bad guys may be an angry mob with basic weapons or a well trained fighting squad supported with indirect fire capability and NVG’s. You don’t know until after the fight, so you fight as if they have such capability.
In any case, a professional (especially over five hours) is not going to try to scare the enemy with a laser that may or not be detected and if it is gives his position away. You scare the enemy directly with a jet a treetop level using afterburners or anything having a similar direct effect. This wasn’t some private on his first mission.
Good question at the link, who sent the team from Tripoli?
I recall hearing that there were two ex-seals. This would mean the guy who came from Tripoli was not active duty and that the team was not our military.
Good on Petraeus if the CIA was the only agency to help.
The story is deliberately confused – in part because there was a “secret” CIA annex. The “ex-SEALs” were CIA, and were stationed at the CIA annex roughly a mile from the Consulate. The relief from Tripoli was something else entirely – Libyan troops on buses was what I heard.
As I understand it, Woods left the CIA annex without orders. Went to the consulate. Gathered the people there. And brought them back to the CIA annex. But they couldn’t find the Ambassador. Woods later dies on the roof of the annex after the machinegun he’s using runs out of ammo and they get hit with more mortar fire.
He didn’t go without orders. He was ordered not to go.
First time I’ve heard anything about running out of ammo. Are you sure about that?
The Jennifer Griffin report mentions the machine gun on the roof. I can’t recall where I heard they were out of ammo. I seem to remember it being from AP or Reuters where they were talking about how irritated the jihadists were when they discovered their opposition was two guys.
Did the gunships the president ordered to stand down run out of ammo?
Your “someone” Bob, is a perfect example of your lack of insight. Which is ironic since you see it as an insight.
His commander is responsible, not because he could have done something to help like your hypothetical someone, but because he has command authority over the soldier. That is what makes him responsible, not that he is just a someone that might have altered the outcome. That commander is responsible to us because that soldier is fighting for us. He is directly responsible if he disallowed an asset the soldier expected to use.
That you would equate a morally responsible person with just any someone shows your moral compass doesn’t exist and any direction is as good as any other.
For those that think he was lazing to scare someone away is just stupid. This guy and partner killed 60 of the enemy. He was being effective and to suggest he would stay in an area being mortared to use an ineffective tactic is to accuse him of a lack of professionalism. It’s an insult to his memory.
I just don’t think Democrats or Republicans or top military commanders play politics with American lives, and I don’t think anyone except Al Queda killed four Americans in Libya.
Let’s take this statement at face value. So Bob, would you alter your view if facts say otherwise? Would you alter your view if it wasn’t strictly politics?
Obama knew for five hours during a nine hour period that people under his command were requesting the use of assets on site to help them defend themselves which he disallowed. He disallowed because the way our government is structured, only he has the authority.
We know that Leon Panetta was lying when he said, “he didn’t have all the details and didn’t want to send forces into ‘harm’s way’.” That was part of the coverup [for Obama], pure and simple.
Continue to be an optimist Bob. Just don’t be an idiot.
Here’s another account.
Note that, “It was during this attack that former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed” doesn’t mention that this is a five hour period.
Ace says show us the order.
I don’t think the sources for the Fox story are completely reliable:
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-strange-ignorance-of-foxs-benghazi.html
Fox has more credibility than a link to some LARPers analysis.
“Woods was grossly insubordinate: he probably received a later order to go to the mission that the sources didn’t know about.”
What do you have to back this up? You ding Fox pretty hard for their sourcing but you seem to have none to back your speculations up.
“The annex came under fire around midnight: quite possibly the militants followed the security team back to the annex.”
You should read the comments from Vile Rat. “vile_rat: assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures” This shows the attackers had good intel.
“However, even if dispatched at that time, the firefight would have been over long before it reached Libyan airspace.”
Air support should have been launched when the attack was first reported. Special Ops should have been mobilized at the same time. Both should have been sent in as soon as they were ready not asked to stand down.
Ex-seals on the ground, real time communication, and drones over head is the best possible set up for the military to send aid.
It simply seems less probable that Woods and his team would all disobey orders than that they were ordered to go to the mission, not prematurely, but as soon as practical.
Well, it looks like one group from Tripoli was ordered to go but as you point out in your blog they could be contractors or CIA but were not military. Why only send 6? Why not send the spec-ops groups that were ready and willing to go?
It seems entirely probable to me that an ex-seal would disobey orders and run into danger to protect fellow Americans. Being out manned would be like every other mission he had ever been on.
What doesn’t make sense is that Obama would not let the military act. The decision not to act had to come from Obama. Then there is everything that happened after from the arrest of an American citizen to lie after lie about who was responsible and what Obama knew about what he was watching on the live stream.
“I don’t think the sources for the Fox story are completely reliable”
You have no idea who they are.
I know that they had incomplete information, and some of what they thought they knew was wrong. That’s all explicit in Griffin’s reporting.
They can also be narrowed down to a fairly small group of people.
The Vile Rat email refers to the mission, not the safe house. The location of the mission was public knowledge.
True but it shows that the terrorist group was actively getting information from the inside. It would be reasonable to assume they knew more than you are giving them credit for.