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

[Redskins Diehard]

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".

What US policy were the attackers trying to change?

[Thiebear]

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???

non political
a. we find out about the security team requests and then review the same for other embassies
b. we find out about the saferoom buildout and other building deficiencies to repair
c. we find out about the personnel that saved these people and give them the credit due.
d. we find out about response teams and how they should respond going forward (drones/people)

political
1. we find out why the first response was so odd considering new reports.
2. we find out why the security is being removed while 'greening' up other embassies while being told alqaeda is out front.
3. who gets fired! Hillary as i asked on Day 3. or someone lower going to take the fall for this debacle.
4. who replaces the person while we work out a-d above.

[twa]

Jumbo, I would be surprised if he had anything to do with it with the possible exception of our response (awaiting detail there)

He ain't my target aside from the stupid video meme...... unless you know something I don't

[Thiebear]

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.

16 on-site trained special forces would and have decimated anything not equally trained for a seige.
If the Ambassador noticed local 'security' taking pictures and they were following them around Col Wood could have fixed this before it happened.
Lots of If's but they fall in the realm of not only possible but probable. Its their turf and they are trained to do this.
We had another random team wander in to help and got them out while it was happening.

[JMS]

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.

Ok bagdad is 21 buildings and the size of vatican city, and employs 15000 folks, at least it did during the war. I'll give you that one... Although I will say that even the US Embassy in bagdad came under mortor attack at times during the war.. The embassy in Kabul isn't all that much..

[Redskins Diehard]

Ok bagdad is 21 buildings and the size of vatican city, and employs 15000 folks, at least it did during the war. I'll give you that one... Although I will say that even the US Embassy in bagdad came under mortor attack at times during the war.. The embassy in Kabul isn't all that much..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_4th_2010.jpg

What size Marine Security detachment do they have there?

[JMS]

16 on-site trained special forces would and have decimated anything not equally trained for a seige.

Well if they decimated the force against the consulate they would have still had 135 guys to go and still be outnumbered 9-1... I think you are being silly even to suggest 16 guys would make a difference in the consulate fight... but I'l bite, where "have" 16 special forces guys held out and won against 10 to 1 odds?

Let's assume they aren't alloud to turn the consulate into a fire base

If the Ambassador noticed local 'security' taking pictures and they were following them around Col Wood could have fixed this before it happened.

Well their is a difference in stopping one guy taking picutres fron a near by building and 150 guys coming over the wall. I mean you are basically talking about Gordon of Khartom here.

Lots of If's but they fall in the realm of not only possible but probable. Its their turf and they are trained to do this.
We had another random team wander in to help and got them out while it was happening.

Nobody is trained to go 1 on 10. or 16 on 150...

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 06:28 PM ----------

What size Marine Security detachment do they have there?

I don't know speciffically about Iraq, but the embassies which have them typically have 12-20 Marine Security Guards. Those guys aren't there to protect the embassies or even the people in the embassies. There primary job is to protect the classified information and equipment in the embassy. They do sometimes supervise the locals hireid to provide exterior secuirty...

But there are only about 1000 MSG and we have more than 200 embassies and probable twice as many consulates; so you do the math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_...sponsibilities

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 06:46 PM ----------

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

So how many people do you need to protect a consulet of 20-30 guys?

respond within minutes????....do you even know how many 'minutes' it was while the consulate was overrun and set ablaze?[COLOR="Gold"]

25 minutes from the time the CIA annex heard the shots being fired at the embassy, until the first column consisting of 8 guys reached the consulate from the annex.
This group included the two former seals.

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.

So 10 is way way low, but 16 and everything is peachy? I don't even know what you are arguing really. Two relief groups reached the consulate...
The first was 8 guys from the cia annex who arrived 25 minutes after the first shots were fired. The second group was a response team from Tripoli...

So what is your point.. The response team of 16 guys should have been there the entire time in Benghazi? Then the consulate wouldn't have been over run? Then the anned wouldn't have come under attack? I don't know your point...

16 member team could not have saved the consulate.. Yeah they could and did get the consulate people out of harms way.

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't know speciffically about Iraq, but the embassies which have them typically have 12-20 Marine Security Guards. Those guys aren't there to protect the embassies or even the people in the embassies. There primary job is to protect the classified information and equipment in the embassy. They do sometimes supervise the locals hireid to provide exterior secuirty...

But there are only about 1000 MSG and we have more than 200 embassies and probable twice as many consulates; so you do the math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_...sponsibilities[COLOR="Gold"]

Sometimes I wonder if you even read the links you post?

The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States. The secondary mission of the MSG is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S government property located within designated U.S. diplomatic and consular premises during exigent circumstances (urgent temporary circumstances which require immediate aid or action).
http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/About/MCESGMission.aspx

Ongoing growth

Currently, more than 1,200 Marine security guards are assigned to security detachments in more than 130 countries, Wolf said. Sergeants and below train for seven weeks at Quantico’s Marine Security Guard School, which can accommodate 200 students per class, he said. The schoolhouse is only for those assigned to Marine security guard duty, he added, but the Embassy Security Group provides training to other units and government agencies, including orientation training and emergency escape training for some FBI and State Department personnel.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/1...-libya-102412/
It seems that it isn't 1000MSG. Or over 200 embassies. And well we know that there is at LEAST one consulate that had zero

But it is quite a claim to say that the embassy in Kabul isn't all that. And post a picture from wikipedia. Without even having a clue as to the mission or size of the Marine detachment there. Or the RSO staff I would assume

[twa]

Let's assume they aren't alloud to turn the consulate into a fire base





So 10 is way way low, but 16 and everything is peachy? I don't even know what you are arguing really. Two relief groups reached the consulate...
The first was 8 guys from the cia annex who arrived 25 minutes after the first shots were fired. The second group was a response team from Tripoli...

So what is your point.. The response team of 16 guys should have been there the entire time in Benghazi? Then the consulate wouldn't have been over run? Then the anned wouldn't have come under attack? I don't know your point...

16 member team could not have saved the consulate.. Yeah they could and did get the consulate people out of harms way.

Why not a firebase?...you yourself mention the Saudi's heavy weapons in position in a place MUCH more secure

The 10 were not there,if they were it would certainly have been a different situation....fwiw they came through the gate,the razor wire on the walls cuts down the traffic there.
We had two or three US security personnel available (that were not even prepared to defend) and some Libyans that were green and mostly unarmed
10 trained professionals extra certainly would have changed the equation

[PeterMP]

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.

They were celebrating in the street as if they won right after the engagement and before anybody knew that it would cause us to pull out of Somolia.

They were celebrating and for all they knew bombers might have been in the air to level Modadish.

They were emboldened simply by managing to kill some Americans.

[Redskins Diehard]

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???

Wow Jumbo...you kind of narrowed your focus on one side of the partisan divide. The Fox-head types have given the administration supporters to go into full partisan mode. That Obama, or the Administration, not only did not make any mistakes in Benghazi before, during, or after this incident but frankly no human being on the face of the earth could have possibly done anything to avert this. In fact, despite the fact that we lost an Ambassador for only the 7th time in our nation's history and 3 other Americans "representing our interests" abroad the way it all turned out is actually a win for us. And the fact that a senior representative to the united nations at best didn't know what happened or why it happened 14 days later well that is just the fog of war.

I think the Hannity side of things probably wants to do what they can to get any votes they possibly can before Tuesday and then will reassess after Tuesday. If they win, then they will forget about it. If they lose, then it will be something they continue to talk about. If the Obama team comes out on top then they will not care what happened and why. And if the Obama team loses they will not care what happened and why.(I am sure there are some Obama supporters that would like to know. And I think that at least one or two of them may have posted in this thread)

[Jumbo]

Wow Jumbo...you kind of narrowed your focus on one side of the partisan divide.

Read my post again , amigo, and I'll come back to you. I made it clear that my post was focused only on the political aspects, and framed both the "right" side's "attack" as I had been hearing it and the "left" side's more "defensive" position. Read it again.

Actually, I think I know where perhaps you went awry in your perception (perhaps an incident of bias in itself)..my "vs" wasn't me taking one side over the other..it was separating the two "presentations", showing their conflict, and asking if I had left anything important out of either side's posture...just as written......clear?

[Redskins Diehard]

Read my post again , amigo, and I'll come back to you. I made it clear that my post was focused only on the political aspects, and framed both the "right" side's "attack" as I had been hearing it and the "left" side's more "defensive" position. Read it again.

Got you..my bad. I'll just say you are so knowledgeable about our community and the fact that nobody reads anything the whole way through that you put the point you wanted to make at the beginning(does that do a good job of "proving" my point in spite of the facts at hand? )

[NLC1054]

What US policy were the attackers trying to change?

...You're really playing the semantics game with people attacking a United States consulate, on 9/11.

...Huh. Okay. Gonna walk away now.

[Jumbo]

Got you..my bad. I'll just say you are so knowledgeable about our community and the fact that nobody reads anything the whole way through that you put the point you wanted to make at the beginning(does that do a good job of "proving" my point in spite of the facts at hand? )

I think your posts (and those of others) seem to have included a great deal of worthy material to consider. But the reason I asked the question is because this is one of the threads I haven't been able to thoroughly parse due to time--just sort of scan---and if I was missing something big in the two major "spin" cycles, I was hoping to get a quick "cheat sheet" kind of answer.