• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

Status
Not open for further replies.
pbrauer said:
Robert Gates appeared on CBS's Face The Nation on Sunday and pushed back on the critics of Obama's military. See the video on his appearance at the link .

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News
​
Click to expand...

Assistance did arrive on time actually. Their names were Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Apparently Gates and the rest of the sycophants on the Left are unaware that Woods and Doherty were NOT stationed at the embassy. They were stationed at a separate location and rushed to help in defiance of orders.

This was an 8 hour attack at 2 separate locations. Doherty and Woods managed to rescue dozens and evacuate them to a separate location where they were eventually killed.

The Obama Administration FAILED to provide them backup within an 8 hour window. A stand down order was given twice that withheld any assistance both Woods and Doherty were requesting on the ground.

Gates and anyone else defending the Obama Administration here = pathetic, shameless and dishonest
 
apdst said:
The problem with that notion, is that military operations are dangerous by their very nature. Special operators join special operations units knowing this and accepting the danger involved in being a member of a special operations team.

That being said, you don't stand down your forces, because it's dangerous, or because someone might get hurt, or killed.

No one is under the illusion that our servicemen are super human, or that they have no limitations. However, in the case of Benghazi, there wasn't ANY attempt made to relieve our people that were being attacked on the ground.

The flaw that exists there, is made up of timidity and indecisiveness; shortcomings that will become a scurge on any fighting force.
Click to expand...

And what if the forces we did send turn up dying due to being outmatched? Kinda like general Custer overestimating the ability a of his seventh cavalry and underestimating the number of enemy's at Little Bighorn.
 
Bronson said:
Assistance did arrive on time actually. Their names were Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Apparently Gates and the rest of the sycophants on the Left are unaware that Woods and Doherty were NOT stationed at the embassy. They were stationed at a separate location and rushed to help in defiance of orders.

This was an 8 hour attack at 2 separate locations. Doherty and Woods managed to rescue dozens and evacuate them to a separate location where they were eventually killed.

The Obama Administration FAILED to provide them backup within an 8 hour window. A stand down order was given twice that withheld any assistance both Woods and Doherty were requesting on the ground.

Gates and anyone else defending the Obama Administration here = pathetic, shameless and dishonest
Click to expand...

Those two were the closest people there, and they could not save steavens even when they did arive. The only thing that we could is help evacuate CIA building.
 
Gates initiates his interview by saying ..."all i know is what iv read in the media, i havent been briefed"......so how in hell does he know what he would have done?..why is he being interviewed if he admits to no knowing the situation?.....as its already been mentioned, how do they know there wasnt enough time to respond?...do they have crystal balls? (ok, lets hear the jokes)........the middle east is a hotbed of terrorist activity and we dont have a reponse team always ready to go anywhere at anytime?.......there is always an aircratft carrier in the Mediterranean
 
One of the problems we have seen over the past 60 plus years, there have been some Secretary of Defense who go beyond what their job is and micromanage the military. Gates, Rumsfeld, McNamara just to name a few. With Gates, he's not qualified or has any experience in military tactics. Unless he had some stars on his color in the past and knows how to win battles on the battlefield he should leave the tactics to be used to the professionals.

There's a chain of command to follow. The Cn'C (POTUS) authorizes or issues orders to use the military. As far as he should go, consult the JCOS and issues the orders and say what the "objective" is. In the Benghazi case, save American citizens lives and rescue those Americans from Benghazi.

The Cn'C follows the chain of command and relays those orders to the Secretary of Defense who relays those orders to the appropriate military command. It's the military commanders (not POTUS or Secretary of Defense) who decides what tactics will be employed to achieve the objective. Even President Eisenhower being a five star general would have stuck to the chain of command and allowed his military commanders to decide what tactics would be used to accomplish the objective.

It's the military who decides if "Delta Force" should be used or in Marines from the MEU who are part of the Navy ARG should be sent in. Or if a F-16 should be deployed over Benghazi.

Unfortunately, there was no Navy CSG or ARG/MEU on station as they should have been. The past eleven POTUS always made sure there was a CBG/CSG and an ARG/MEU in the Mediterranean, Obama failed as Cn'C.

"Delta Force" was supposedly no more than two hours away from Benghazi. It's believed they were the Special Operation Forces who were ordered to deployed and ordered to stand down twice.

There were military assess in the area and the military received no orders.

Only the President can order the use of the military and only the President can order a stand down.

If President Obama took himself out of the chain of command and gave the authority to use the military to Gates, that's dereliction of duty by Obama.

The only time the U.S. military doesn't need the authorization from POTUS is when a U.S. military installation, ship, aircraft or personnel are under attack.

The Secretary of Defense is suppose to over see the military services. Make sure there are carriers in their AOR. That the troops are being properly trained to wage war and not sitting in diversity classes.That the military is properly equipped and aren't paying $600 for a toilet seat or $27 per gallon for ship fuel or $57 per gallon for JP-8 jet fuel.

Gates was a yes man just like Hagel is.

When the military needs to be deployed, the POTUS is just suppose to tell them what the objective is, the U.S. military will take it from there.
 
fmw said:
So we have a former secretary of defense who wouldn't send help to a distressed foreigh mission because it would have been dangerous? You're kidding. Military operations can be dangerous? Glad he's no longer running the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Secretary Gates' point was that military forces cannot be committed into a situation when the environmental situation is unknown. If, for example, a small, lightly-armed force is inserted into a situation in which it is out-manned and out-gunned, the mission would very likely be a failure and the resulting casualties would have been unnecessary. His approach is a prudent and responsible one.

Finally, he was the Secretary of Defense who presided over the turnaround in the military situation in Iraq. He had inherited that bad situation that was largely the result of planning based on rosy assumptions (no insurgency, less need for manpower, etc.).
 
donsutherland1 said:
Secretary Gates' point was that military forces cannot be committed into a situation when the environmental situation is unknown. If, for example, a small, lightly-armed force is inserted into a situation in which it is out-manned and out-gunned, the mission would very likely be a failure and the resulting casualties would have been unnecessary. His approach is a prudent and responsible one.

Finally, he was the Secretary of Defense who presided over the turnaround in the military situation in Iraq. He had inherited that bad situation that was largely the result of planning based on rosy assumptions (no insurgency, less need for manpower, etc.).
Click to expand...

I wonder why he felt it necessary to say anything at all. Perhaps he feels that, although his statements are true, that there is indeed something inside the DoD that should be looked at and since the current investigations were not focused in that direction, his statement acts as a signal for someone to start looking in that direction.
 
MaggieD said:
Bolded statement: If what I recall is true, that the attack transpired over four or five hours, I find his statement not only unbelievable, but a lie.

If we don't have a "ready force" standing by in the Middle East? Where they hell do we have a ready force?
Click to expand...

I believe the Secretary was referring to a force in close enough proximity to Libya to have been effective. We have a major naval base in Bahrain, but that's some 2,000 miles away. If I'm not mistaken, the closest U.S. air base is in Italy.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Secretary Gates' point was that military forces cannot be committed into a situation when the environmental situation is unknown. If, for example, a small, lightly-armed force is inserted into a situation in which it is out-manned and out-gunned, the mission would very likely be a failure and the resulting casualties would have been unnecessary. His approach is a prudent and responsible one.
Click to expand...
The situation was less "unknown" than you might think - we had surveillance drones overhead watching the thing develop for hours.
 
DVSentinel said:
I wonder why he felt it necessary to say anything at all. Perhaps he feels that, although his statements are true, that there is indeed something inside the DoD that should be looked at and since the current investigations were not focused in that direction, his statement acts as a signal for someone to start looking in that direction.
Click to expand...

It's only natural for the media to inquire of past leaders to see how they might have handled situations. IMO, it is a fair question for Congress to ask the Pentagon why there wasn't an aircraft carrier in closer proximity to Libya given the recent civil war and continuing risks of post-conflict instability. Effective deployment of military assets, including a capability for rapid response, has to consider a balance of today's risks and tomorrow's priorities. I don't know enough about the military's reasoning, so I'm making no judgment on that issue only suggesting that it would be reasonable for Congress to follow up on that angle. IMO, looking at concrete questions such as that example would be a productive use of Congressional oversight authority.
 
trfjr said:
The big pink elephant in the room that everyone is continuing to ignore is the military brass keeps insisting that they couldn't get military help there in time. I would like to know how did they know they wouldn't get there in time how in the hell did they knew when the attack was going end and why hasn't any one asked
Click to expand...

Because the people investigating this are not concerned with fixing the problem, they're only concerned with pointing fingers.
 
Just something that has not been commented yet that I have seen. People keep talking about Italy and what not as being places where jets and what not are stationed and the jets not being ready and it would have taken hours for them to be ready and get there and what not but here's my question....We have 3 aircraft carriers in the Middle East right now. Last I knew whenever an aircraft carrier is in an area like the ME that they are suppose to always be ready to put jets in the air. What happened to those?

Not that I really care. What happened happened and it is done and over with. Shoulda coulda woulda's don't mean a darn thing and hindesight is always 20/20. What I am more concerned about all of this is how the story keeps changing and officials are contradicting each other.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I believe the Secretary was referring to a force in close enough proximity to Libya to have been effective. We have a major naval base in Bahrain, but that's some 2,000 miles away. If I'm not mistaken, the closest U.S. air base is in Italy.
Click to expand...

We had military assesses in Sicily and at the NATO base in Italy. Also in Germany.

From 1948 until Obama became President, the U.S. Navy always had at least one Carrier Battle Group/Carrier Strike Group and a Amphibious Ready Group with either a Marine BLT or MEU on board able to deploy 1,800 Marines 24/7 for 60 years. President Obama as Cn'C has failed where the other eleven Presidents before him didn't. Just incompetency or dereliction of duty ?

There was one U.S. Navy destroyer near by in the region. Now I seriously doubt Obama or Gates no how to use that destroyer's 5"/54 gun. In fact I doubt 90 % in the military know what the 5"58 gun is capable of and not capable of. That's why we have Marine ANGLICO's.

Back to Benghazi and the two former Navy SEAL's. From their actions they believed that the military would be in charge, not Obama, Gates or any other civilians. These two former SEAL's lit up the Al Qaeda mortar position with a laser targeting designator. Why did they do that ? Because they were expecting either an Air Force F-16 or Navy or Marine FA-18 armed with laser guided Mk.48 bombs or even with laser guided Maverick air to surface missiles.

So Gates is full of crap. A Maverick can be launched at high altitude from 25 miles away from it's target.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Secretary Gates' point was that military forces cannot be committed into a situation when the environmental situation is unknown. If, for example, a small, lightly-armed force is inserted into a situation in which it is out-manned and out-gunned, the mission would very likely be a failure and the resulting casualties would have been unnecessary. His approach is a prudent and responsible one.

Finally, he was the Secretary of Defense who presided over the turnaround in the military situation in Iraq. He had inherited that bad situation that was largely the result of planning based on rosy assumptions (no insurgency, less need for manpower, etc.).
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid. What a lousy excuse for letting a U.S. facility be attacked and destroyed while doing nothing about it. Perhaps we shouldn't have a military. I'm not sure we know how to manage one.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And what if the forces we did send turn up dying due to being outmatched? Kinda like general Custer overestimating the ability a of his seventh cavalry and underestimating the number of enemy's at Little Bighorn.
Click to expand...

That's the chance you take, because...military operations, especially special operations are dangerous by their very nature.

Little Bighorn is a bad example, BTW. Custer wasn't on a rescue mission. Apples and oranges. The bottom line, is that if you have people on the ground, in trouble, you don't do NOTHING.
 
apdst said:
That's the chance you take, because...military operations, especially special operations are dangerous by their very nature.

Little Bighorn is a bad example, BTW. Custer wasn't on a rescue mission. Apples and oranges. The bottom line, is that if you have people on the ground, in trouble, you don't do NOTHING.
Click to expand...

The state department wanted their people Evacuated. The military wanted to conduct a attack. You need more information and planning to conduct a Evacuation. And planning takes time.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It was under attack but they did not know exactly how many attackers there were or how well armed they were.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's don't act like it was our servicemen who didn't want to go in.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The state department wanted their people Evacuated. The military wanted to conduct a attack. You need more information and planning to conduct a Evacuation.
Click to expand...

So, the solution was to do NOTHING?

Totally inexcusable.
 
You can tell the Liberals on this thread who have never been in the American military.

The more dangerous the mission is, the more guys that volunteer and literally demand to go. That's how it is with American fighting men, particularly when other guys are in danger.

The posts on this thread clearly illustrate why Liberals should NEVER be in charge of anything related to the military. They will NEVER understand. They simply do not have the heart.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
Rushing in guns blazing is what Custer did at Little Bighorn, look what happened to him.

Besides Benghazi was not the only place causing a commotion during the week of the attack.
Click to expand...

The Israelis went in, guns-a-blazin' at Entebe. That worked out quite well.

Custer failed because of a breakdown in discipline within his chain of command, not because the indians over-powered his regiment. So, let's stop with the erroneous examples, please.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Robert Gates appeared on CBS's Face The Nation on Sunday and pushed back on the critics of Obama's military. See the video on his appearance at the link .

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News
​
Click to expand...

With all the drivel you have been posting on this, some very outlandish. This one makes sense to me. I never had any problem with the judgment calls as to rescue operations or the lack there of and has said so many times in various posts. I would just like to know what the cover up, why this administration wanted to make everyone believe it was a video when everyone knew different. It is more out of curiosity than hostility. In my little mind it makes no sense.
 
Kal'Stang said:
JustWe have 3 aircraft carriers in the Middle East right now. Last I knew whenever an aircraft carrier is in an area like the ME that they are suppose to always be ready to put jets in the air. What happened to those?
Click to expand...

The truth is, since Obama became Cn'C our Navy has fallen apart. It's no longer able to deploy and have a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) on station 24/7 in all five of the Navy's Area of Responsibility. (AOR) The past eleven Presidents as Cn'C were able to do it, Obama can't.

Actualy the last time there were three carriers in the Middle East (5th Fleet AOR and 6th Fleet AOR) was during the Bush administration. Obama has a problem of having a carrier in just one of the Navy's five AOR's.

Right now there's a CSG in the 5th, 6th and 7th Fleet's AOR. For the first time since 2001 we only have one CSG on station in the 5th Fleet AOR. Since 2001 we always had at least two CSG's in AOR 5. That second carrier assigned to AOR was diverted to the 7th Fleet AOR because the carrier normally assigned to the 7th fleet is incapable to put to sea because of Obama diverting funding from operating and maintaining carriers to social engineering programs. Spending $500 Billion dollars to remove urinals from warships because of political correctness !!!

The Mediterranean Sea falls under the 6th Fleet AOR. Since Obama has been President very rarely did Obama have a CSG in the 6th Fleet AOR. Those carriers were usually found tied to their wharfs in Norfolk unable to put to sea. That's why there was no carriers in the Mediterranean to respond to the Al Qaeda attacks in Benghazi. Who's fault is that, the chain of command says the Cn'C (POTUS) then next in line the Secretary of Defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom