Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Stand down" in military parlance tends to mean that you can relax, there's no urgent need for you, go catch some rack time. Nicely feeding the right-wing narrative that people were ordered to sit on their thumbs, for some unspecified but clearly nefarious purpose.
Your source says "They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport", and that's a different scenario. They had a mission (in Tripoli) already, and higher command decided it should take priority. Which is the sort of decisions we pay officers to make. Probably the right decision, too. Sending 4 soldiers - SF or not - off to Benghazi in the dead of night, after an attack in company strength, with no idea of the situation and no backup to call upon? The US has dropped Special Forces into angry mobs before, and it didn't go well.
I haven't heard anything about those supposed "bombshell hearings" about to "blow the lid off of the Benghazi cover up" according to Fox News. What gives? Could it be the hearings showed no cover up or negligence?
The whole Benghazi charade ran out of conservogas.
This is where you estimate the positive effect you think your forces may have in a given mission vs. the risk of losing them while achieving nothing of significance vs. the risk of suddenly needing them in their current mission in Tripoli. And you do it with ridiculously incomplete information, in real time, and with the full knowledge that good guys stand to lose their lives no matter what you choose. Oh, and in this incident, you do know that here are ugly, angry crowds outside 2/3rds of the US embassies in the Middle East. That the Benghazi safehouse has fallen to 100+ bad guys. And the force you have at your disposal consists of 4 persons.
Suppose they'd flown to Benina airport, commandeered a vehicle somehow in the middle of the night for the 12-mile drive to Benghazi proper, and found that an organization that's well-organized enough to launch a company-size attack on what was considered a secret facility also had the smarts to put up a roadblock across the likely reinforcement routes? Fox News would have had orgasms crowing about the military ineptness.
As it happens, Gates said it - "sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces".
This is where you estimate the positive effect you think your forces may have in a given mission vs. the risk of losing them while achieving nothing of significance vs. the risk of suddenly needing them in their current mission in Tripoli. And you do it with ridiculously incomplete information, in real time, and with the full knowledge that good guys stand to lose their lives no matter what you choose. Oh, and in this incident, you do know that here are ugly, angry crowds outside 2/3rds of the US embassies in the Middle East. That the Benghazi safehouse has fallen to 100+ bad guys. And the force you have at your disposal consists of 4 persons.
Suppose they'd flown to Benina airport, commandeered a vehicle somehow in the middle of the night for the 12-mile drive to Benghazi proper, and found that an organization that's well-organized enough to launch a company-size attack on what was considered a secret facility also had the smarts to put up a roadblock across the likely reinforcement routes? Fox News would have had orgasms crowing about the military ineptness.
As it happens, Gates said it - "sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces".
Your reasoning is irrelevant. It was claimed that help was called for and denied. The administration now comes out and says that's not true. They are saying help was called for and help was sent elsewhere. Help was denied any way you want to argue it.
No; because the so called third estate has a history of turning once they see reason to distrust. I think it turned with the media e-mail spying. Doesn't mean they turn from their agenda any more than anyone else.
Your reasoning is irrelevant. It was claimed that help was called for and denied. The administration now comes out and says that's not true. They are saying help was called for and help was sent elsewhere. Help was denied any way you want to argue it.
Who testified that help was called for and denied? Who exactly denied this help according to that testimony?
Nobody with experience in a military S/G-3 shop would ever say something quite that dumb.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
