Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
Now if you have been paying attention to more than right wing talking points it isn't the civilian in charge of the Pentagon who with holds troops from 'dangerous' situations even with soldiers wounded and under fire. If you studied the Hot Mess of the Mogadishu raid in '93 you will see where the senior man in Somalia, a general, refused to send the medivacs in for badly wounded troops and those men died overnight. You'd also know of Gordon and Shughart and their insertion to protect CW Durant in his downed Black Hawk. While it was bravery beyond measure, it didn't save Durant and the deaths didn't alter the subsequent events.
As I look at this I'd say there is a lot more to this than a 'simple' terrorist attack. The American security forces complained there would be an attack, there was tips there would be an attack, the compound was known to be a security risk, there are now rumors of the CIA using this compound to conduct missions, the night was the anniversary of 9-11, the bulk of the security team (possible operatives rather than true guards) was a klick away at the annex and not the consulate. And why does the Ambassador go to the far less secure Consulate on 9-11?
It was a failure of security across the board, from the poorly constructed buildings to the 'security' team itself.
If it turns out the terrorists were hitting the Consulate not for the Ambassador but for the 'information' officer and his operation hunting shoulder launched missiles then the worm turns in a whole new direction. It might explain the reluctance to call the attack an organized assault if the CIA was the primary target.