JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[Redskins Diehard]

In the operation to capture Adid, we secured several blocks of the city including the entire building where Adid was supposed to be, took prisoners and were preparing to leave all without a single casualty. After blackburn fell, Half the command was casualties. That is kinda simptomatic of loosing the advantage... As I said our advantage was mobility, suprise, and airpower. When the descision was made to remain longer than we intened our primary advantages were gone. lost,

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 10:32 AM ----------




Absolutely. it was a chain of mistakes starting with strategic resulting in Adid taking away options until he knew tactically exactly what we would do, where we would be, on his ground outnumbered, waiting for his strength to roll over us while our strength was taken away or mitigated.




We did send a QRF in from Trippoli and they did arrive before the annex was attacked. But their job wasn't to engage the enemy so much as it was to secure our personell and get the hell out of dodge.

My point, We always have a choice. The moment you act reflexivily you are in trouble. Our Technology advantage works best when it's coupled with smart decision making.




They killed our Ambassador and they did it in the first hour of the confrontation. Do you think we would have or should have acted differently if the ambassador wasn't at the consulate?



I think it's a miracle that 150 guys attacked our consulate and we only lost 4 guys. I think miracles are usually the result of good decision making. I think the biggest mistake we could have made would be to commit a company or batalion blind not knowing what we were facing. Turn four deaths into 50, 100 or more. I think the smaller teams with orders to get our folks out were pretty sucessful.




Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell, I think it's entirely relevent premise though.



160 men, took 91 casualties
18 killed
73 wounded
1 captured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)




Battle for Mogadisu occured October 3–4, 1993,





Yes mission creep was a one of the mistakes. I don't think if we had invaded and secured Mogadishu and took hundreds of casualties doing so we would have looked any stronger. You don't go to war to appear strong, or because you are afraid of looking weak. You go to war when you care enough to put the full force of the country behind it, when you have no other choice because your vital interests are at stake... There is no evidence 9-11 would have been avoided if we had a different result in mogadishu. 9-11 was about (1) Our Troops in Saudi in the first gulf war. (1b) Our support of Israel. Again with committing minimal resources AQ thought they could draw us into a war in Afghanistan and break us as the Soviet Union was broken in Afghanistan.

Our support of Saudi keeps the royal family their in power and Al Quada controling Saudi is an interum goal.. The head nod towards Israel is an appeal for broader Arab support; as Al Quada's overall goal is a return of the calaphate... an empire stretching from Iran across the ME and north Arica to Morroco and potentially even into Europe.

Your version of the events in Mogadishu differ than any that have been reported with respect to sequence of events. Blackburn fell out of the first helicopter prior to the assault team securing their target. So you referenced a wikipedia article that indicates that number killed was not 80 like you stated in your previous post. And then you quoted another wikipedia article which says the ready battalion of the 24th Infantry Division was sent to Mogadishu in the wake of this battle. But you did ... that section of the article you quoted(Reminds me of the Seinfeld yada yada yada) That seems to me that President Clinton DID decide to send more troops in the aftermath. So we have at least 2 fundamental matters of fact that you have asserted incorrectly. I see you are sticking with the notion that TF Ranger was "rolled over" in Mogadishu. You made the assertion that a force of 150 only killed 4 as a success. I wonder what the ration of us v. them was in Mogadishu? And the casualties they sustained vs, the number of casualties that we sustained. I think the most conservative estimates are that "they" sustained about 150 casualties for every one of ours. Doesn't seem like we were "rolled over" as you assert.

You are pretty close about why 9-11 happened in my opinion. It is not just US troops in Saudi Arabia following Desert Storm but more or less our overall interest in the region. Which can be traced to one thing which spans Administrations. But our actions and inactions in Somalia actually did have an impact. At least according to Bin Laden:
Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...interview.html

edit: But this has gone far down the Gothic Serpent comparison. Your view appears to be that they should not have gone to the crash site because it was risky. That they should have left a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy. That Shugart and Gordon should not have been inserted into the crash site. That Streuker and his convoy should not have gone in time and again to save those he could. That runs counter to the creed that those men live by. But different people can view that stuff differently

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

Manpads likely refer to SA-7s, i.e., the Soviet equivalent of the Stinger. Nasty little buggers. And I believe Libya had thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of them.

So I imagine those things would have been a threat to the plane they sent from Tripoli? If so, should we not have sent that flight until we knew where all the SA-7's were?

[JMS]

From everything I have read his death was not confirmed till long after,and even recall reports of him dying later at the hospital

I think that's true. I guess my point is the objective was not to protect the consulate, nor secure Benghezi or engage the folks who attacked us. The goal was to grab our people and get them the hell away from there. Which is what they did.

we send people to protect their withdrawal.....you make it sound like we sent a cab

I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is we didn't send folks in to go after the forces which overran our consulate, the consulate was not the priority, looking strong was not the priority, leaving was the priority.

The US displaying weakness was a major factor in OBL's reasoning,and getting killed and burned out is slightly different than withdrawing.

I disagree, we aren't weak we are the strongest nation in the world many times over. The appearance of strength is irrelivent when you are strong. The issue is you won't be strong very long if you squander your strenth, fight folks you don't have too, or allow others to dictate how you fight.

the Spectre reference is from Griffins reporting
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/

perhaps this would make good reading
http://wecheck.org/wiki/Benghazi_Attack_Timeline

Thank you that's exactly what I was looking for..

[twa]

I disagree, we aren't weak we are the strongest nation in the world many times over. The appearance of strength is irrelivent when you are strong. The issue is you won't be strong very long if you squander your strenth, fight folks you don't have too, or allow others to dictate how you fight.




..

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.
If you do not dissuade the perception you must then use that strength...much easier and cheaper to appear strong from the start to prevent idiots from truly testing you.

you know,like adequate security

[Redskins Diehard]

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.
If you do not dissuade the perception you must then use that strength...much easier and cheaper to appear strong from the start to prevent idiots from truly testing you.

you know,like adequate security

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...interview.html

[NLC1054]

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.

In what way?

Terrorist don't give a **** about whether we can nuke them off the face of the earth or not. We can still do that, and they still attack.

In what way have we appeared weak to the rest of the world? Because Barack Obama admitted that Bush era foreign policy made us a laughing stock to our allies and made us look like bullies to everyone else and that there was a lot of meaningless and pointless bloodshed that ultimately had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"?

Terrorist attacked the World Trade Center with a Democrat in office, and they attacked with a Republican an office. Terrorist don't give a **** about how strong we look. The goal is to make Americans look as though they are bullies and thugs trying to force their idelogy down the rest of the world's throat by provoking them into attacking and appearing to be just that.

[Thiebear]

NLC1054: Do you think the embassy would have been better off with the 16 member special ops team or the 6 member Elite team?
That is what is referred to as appearing weak or strong.. it keeps the lower levels from testing the perimeter.
Or testing it and then trying something a bit less deadly.

[JMS]

Oh I agree we are not weak, but it can be perceived that way....and has been.
If you do not dissuade the perception you must then use that strength...much easier and cheaper to appear strong from the start to prevent idiots from truly testing you.

Let me put this another way... We were weak in Mogandishu and we were weak in Benghazi and we were weak and stupid in Beruit before that. That's why they attacked us there. It's impossible to be strong everywhere. There is no myth of American invisinsiblity in war. Anybody who was around in the early 1970's knows the American military is not invinsible.

you know,like adequate security

20-30 guys in Bengazi were attacked by 150 well armed terrorists... What to you would seem to be reasonable security?

We had eight guys respond within minutes to the consulate, we had another group of guys respond a few hours latter.. In total we lost two guys.. Two of the consulate personel and two of the responders... What force to your mind would have allowed us to appear less weak?

I don't think we did that bad, and I'm glad we don't have a few hundred or a few thousand troops in Benghezi right now.

[PeterMP]

NLC1054: Do you think the embassy would have been better off with the 16 member special ops team or the 6 member Elite team?
That is what is referred to as appearing weak or strong.. it keeps the lower levels from testing the perimeter.
Or testing it and then trying something a bit less deadly.

But in some cases terrorists don't care.

As has been pointed out, the "terrorists" took HUGE loses in Mogidishu. They still considered it a victory. Every one of the terrorists on 9/11 ended up dead, and practically, the damage to the US wasn't much more than negligible.

But they considered it a victory.

Unless something drastic happens, by the time we pull out of Afghanistan, we'll have decimated the Taliban and Al Qeada leadership w/o losing a high level leader ourselves and the kill ratio will be hugely slanted in our favor.

But I'm sure they will declare it a victory.

If we would have had better security in the consulate, would it have not happened? Potentially.

But I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have attacked anyway taken huge losses, "won" something (ultimately forced a withdraw and killed some people (potentailly even the ambassador) and declared it a victory.

When the filed for "winning" is so slanted, it is hard to win and hard to lose.

[JMS]

If we would have had better security in the consulate, would it have not happened? Potentially.

But I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have attacked anyway taken huge losses, "won" something (ultimately forced a withdraw and killed some people (potentailly even the ambassador) and declared it a victory.

When the filed for "winning" is so slanted, it is hard to win and hard to lose.

I just don't think 16 guys no matter how well trained is going to be much of a deterant when faced against 150. And frankly we din't send in a larger force because we were afraid of what we saw. We didn't send in a larger force because we thoujght the 150 was just the tip of the iceburg.

Again I say no consulate or embassy in the world could sustain itself in the face of such an attack without the support of the host country.. none.... and a 150 guys with the elemint of suprise could have given some of our military bases a run for their money much less an isolated consulate. 19 sappers penetrated and occupied part of our embassy in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam war. One of the most heavily fortified embassies in the world at the time with nearly 600,000 american troops on the gound in that country. 16 additional security wouldn't have made a lick of difference.. none.

[Redskins Diehard]

But in some cases terrorists don't care.

As has been pointed out, the "terrorists" took HUGE loses in Mogidishu. They still considered it a victory. Every one of the terrorists on 9/11 ended up dead, and practically, the damage to the US wasn't much more than negligible.

But they considered it a victory.

Unless something drastic happens, by the time we pull out of Afghanistan, we'll have decimated the Taliban and Al Qeada leadership w/o losing a high level leader ourselves and the kill ratio will be hugely slanted in our favor.

But I'm sure they will declare it a victory.

If we would have had better security in the consulate, would it have not happened? Potentially.

But I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have attacked anyway taken huge losses, "won" something (ultimately forced a withdraw and killed some people (potentailly even the ambassador) and declared it a victory.

When the filed for "winning" is so slanted, it is hard to win and hard to lose.

They considered it a win in Mogadishu because they got us out of their country. It emboldened them. Their objectives are essentially what JMS pointed out early. To end our involvement in the Middle East. And to end our support of Israel. That is what Bin Laden wanted to accomplish. He wanted to attack our Embassy and USS Cole and then finally our homeland with the expectation that we did NOT have the resolve to respond. That instead our populace would rise up and demand that we get out of Muslim lands and end our support of Israel. This position was somewhat based on our reaction to their previous attacks on our interests. President Bush and President Obama after him demonstrated that was not the case. What Bin Laden was really wrong about was the fact that a majority of Americans didn't, and still don't, understand why they attacked us in all those scenarios.

I don't think Benghazi is similar to Mogadishu in that regard. But the "terrorists" in Benghazi killed a United States Ambassador which has happened a total of I think 7 times in our history. That is significant. Joe Biden might even say a big ****ing deal.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 04:21 PM ----------

I just don't think 16 guys no matter how well trained is going to be much of a deterant when faced against 150. And frankly we din't send in a larger force because we were afraid of what we saw. We didn't send in a larger force because we thoujght the 150 was just the tip of the iceburg.

Again I say no consulate or embassy in the world could sustain itself in the face of such an attack without the support of the host country.. none.... and a 150 guys with the elemint of suprise could have given some of our military bases a run for their money much less an isolated consulate. 19 sappers penetrated and occupied part of our embassy in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam war. One of the most heavily fortified embassies in the world at the time with nearly 600,000 american troops on the gound in that country. 16 additional security wouldn't have made a lick of difference.. none.

I'm quite certain the embassy in Kabul and the embassy in Baghdad are both positioned to sustain itself in the face of such an attack as we saw in Benghazi.

[twa]

Let me put this another way... We were weak in Mogandishu and we were weak in Benghazi and we were weak and stupid in Beruit before that. That's why they attacked us there. It's impossible to be strong everywhere. There is no myth of American invisinsiblity in war. Anybody who was around in the early 1970's knows the American military is not invinsible.



20-30 guys in Bengazi were attacked by 150 well armed terrorists... What to you would seem to be reasonable security?

We had eight guys respond within minutes to the consulate, we had another group of guys respond a few hours latter.. In total we lost two guys.. Two of the consulate personel and two of the responders... What force to your mind would have allowed us to appear less weak?

I don't think we did that bad, and I'm glad we don't have a few hundred or a few thousand troops in Benghezi right now.

Did you mean invincible?

5 security personnel is not near enough,and combined with the caliber of the Libyan security would be laughable if not so tragic

respond within minutes????....do you even know how many 'minutes' it was while the consulate was overrun and set ablaze?

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 03:26 PM ----------

I just don't think 16 guys no matter how well trained is going to be much of a deterant when faced against 150. And frankly we din't send in a larger force because we were afraid of what we saw. We didn't send in a larger force because we thoujght the 150 was just the tip of the iceburg.

16 additional security wouldn't have made a lick of difference.. none.

Yet 10 could run the gauntlet and rescue them w/o even heavy weapons?
I'd suggest you don't understand the capabilities of our special forces.

[Redskins Diehard]

Did you mean invincible?

5 security personnel is not near enough,and combined with the caliber of the Libyan security would be laughable if not so tragic

respond within minutes????....do you even know how many 'minutes' it was while the consulate was overrun and set ablaze?

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 03:26 PM ----------



Yet 10 could run the gauntlet and rescue them w/o even heavy weapons?
I'd suggest you don't understand the capabilities of our special forces.

Wouldn't even require special forces. Well trained conventional forces could have handled this situation. 150 people attacking and not a single death due to small arms fire.

[twa]

Wouldn't even require special forces. Well trained conventional forces could have handled this situation. 150 people attacking and not a single death due to small arms fire.

True, if well trained
but with two men tasked strictly to Stevens and one doing required coms in the TOC leaves little to provide security or even observation inside a compound three football fields long.
we provide more security than that on domestic targets

[NLC1054]

I don't think Benghazi is similar to Mogadishu in that regard. But the "terrorists" in Benghazi killed a United States Ambassador which has happened a total of I think 7 times in our history. That is significant. Joe Biden might even say a big ****ing deal..

Uh, why is terrorist in quotation marks? They were terrorist. Committing and act of terrorism. For all intents and purposes it appeared to be al Qaeda operatives. Terrorist. Not "terrorist".

[Jumbo]

So tell me straight...as just an observer on the politicizing aspects of this particular "firestorm/ controversy" since it began (and I have some folks here, serious Fox-head types, who have been truly incensed and livid about this from a "Obama's the devil again on this" view since Day One)...what's the partisan end-game here...is it Obama had a meaningful hand in the development of this event and mismanaged things at a serious level...and/or engaged in serious and disgraceful cover up to protect whatever self-serving needs...vs....Obama had little to do with how this played out other than he's CIC and did nothing nefarious of any kind and it's all being just disgracefully spun for political gain by the right...I mean, is that about it?....or I am missing more???