Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

CanadaJohn said:

So, in your view, if President Obama was in Egypt, for example, and he and his party came under attack you would advise waiting for the Egyptian government to give you the okay before a rescue mission was launched within Egypt? Hope you've got your "pretty please" speech all prepared.

Besides, it's also true that the host country has responsibility to protect foreign diplomats within their borders - if they can't, or refuse to, that's too bad.

Finally, I hope you'll be on the phone to Obama and the CIA to remind them that they can't send drones into Pakistan any more because Pakistan didn't give you the okay yet.

Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Excellent post! :thumbs:

DiAnna said:

Thanks for posting this information. I had not heard any of this before.

Click to expand...

They probably just thought it up.

justabubba said:

we are not israel

Click to expand...

Nor are we Brazil.

we do not (normally) conduct military operation in countries with which we are not at war

Click to expand...

Define "normally".

at least not without their permission

Click to expand...

We ask permission to bomb the citizens of other countries?

(pakistan and our pursuit of osama bin laden is a notable exception)

Click to expand...

As well as the drones being used.

If there are exceptions there are no rules.

MMC said:

Heya CJ....that's what I said since they have a taped excerpt of Stevens Requesting Security on Sept. 1 2012. Then I found this.

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape.....

In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya.

Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

Ambassador warned Libya was "volatile and violent"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes "responsibility" for Benghazi attack

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September."

On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard postions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.

Piecing together White House response to Benghazi

On August 8, as the special security teams left Libya, another cable from Stevens says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."

Colonel Andrew Wood led the U.S. military team that left Libya in August. He testified before Congress last week.

He told CBS News that Stevens fought losing another security team.....snip~

Watch: Ex-security team leader says Amb. Stevens was concerned over threats
Security dwindled before deadly Libyan consulate attack
CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News

I would note all the other links.....CBS News has up as well about it as well.

Click to expand...

And several months after his death it was discovered that he and his staff didn't need help after all. And this was in one of the cables Hillary Clinton actually read, so the Sec. of State and the and President followed his instructions.

That sounds logical.

Grant said:

Nor are we Brazil.


Define "normally".



We ask permission to bomb the citizens of other countries?



As well as the drones being used.

If there are exceptions there are no rules.

Click to expand...

then you would want us to believe that since we went into pakistan after osama bin laden without pakistani government approval that we should also be able to conduct military operations in canada without that government's approval
notice how absurd your conclusion is

Unitedwestand13 said:

Either this is a additional detail to
this case or we finally found the person who turned down offers of additional security.

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy

Click to expand...

McClatchy ?? The idiot who thinks the sub-prime collapse started after 2004 and had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie ?

Who blatantly dismisses the over 5 Trillion in Sub-prime and Alt-A loans and MBSs backed by Sub-Prime loans that Fannie and Freddie passed off to the US Treasury after their ENRON accounting nearly collapsed the US economy ?

Lol...the guy has ZERO credibillity.

Unbelievable.

I mean why don't I just post articles written by Carl Rove or the Koch Brothers ?

If you have to turn to McClathey for ANY data youv'e lost the debate because he will say anything to cover Obama's corrupt ass.

justabubba said:

then you would want us to believe that since we went into pakistan after osama bin laden without pakistani government approval that we should also be able to conduct military operations in canada without that government's approval
notice how absurd your conclusion is

Click to expand...

Are terrorists, with anti-armor and indirect fire weapons killing our diplomatic personel in Canada?

I'm think that should an event like that go down in Canada, we wouldn't HAVE to conduct military operations in Canada, because the Canadians would be taking those actions, themselves.

apdst said:

Are terrorists, with anti-armor and indirect fire weapons killing our diplomatic personel in Canada?

I'm think that should an event like that go down in Canada, we wouldn't HAVE to conduct military operations in Canada, because the Canadians would be taking those actions, themselves.

Click to expand...

read what your buddy asserted
that if there is even one exception then there are no rules
deal with your own folks and their stupid posts

apdst said:

Are terrorists, with anti-armor and indirect fire weapons killing our
diplomatic personel in Canada?

I'm think that should an event like that go down in Canada, we wouldn't HAVE to conduct military operations in Canada, because the Canadians would be taking those actions, themselves.

Click to expand...

FFS why don'r these Libs just admit they elected a scum bag.

I mean the evidence is over whelming. It just makes them look desperate when they try to mitigate his lies.

They wouldn't have put up with this under Bush. Hell, those guys made up scandals when Bush was in office.

justabubba said:

read what your buddy asserted
that if there is even one exception then there are no rules
deal with your own folks and their stupid posts

Click to expand...

I'm too busy dealing with your spid posts.

Fenton said:

FFS Libs why don't you just admit you elected a scum bag.

I mean the evidence is over whelming. It just makes you look desperate when you try to mitigate his lies.

You wouldn't have put up with this under Bush. Hell, you guys made up scandals when Bush was in office.

Click to expand...

You quoted the wrong person, bro....LOL!!

Fenton said:

FFS Libs why don't you just admit you elected a scum bag.

I mean the evidence is over whelming. It just makes you look desperate when you try to mitigate his lies.

You wouldn't have put up with this under Bush. Hell, you guys made up scandals when Bush was in office.

Click to expand...

in the meantime your side is telling us that since we pursued osama bin laden without oakistani government authority we should then feel free to conduct military operations in canada without that government's approval, because if there are any exceptions there are no rules

laughable

justabubba said:

then you would want us to believe that since we went into pakistan after osama bin laden without pakistani government approval that we should also be able to conduct military operations in canada without that government's approval
notice how absurd your conclusion is

Click to expand...

Why would you need Canada's approval to invade Canada, or carry out military exercises there?

There are dozens of countries the US has involved themselves in where no approval was given by the host country, but in my experience it has been for the good. If the US feels a country needs invading and they have the interests to do it they will, as with Panama and Grenada, just do it.

There is no reason whatsoever to invade Canada, unless you know something Canadians don't.

polgara said:

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Excellent post! :thumbs:

Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P - hope all is well with you, and thanks.

American said:

Gates is playing Monday morning quarterback. He had no idea how the events would unfold beforehand.

Click to expand...

Exactly no one knew how events would unfold beforehand that's his entire point, which is why we didn't just throw a bunch of military asessts into the area because we didn't know how it would turn out.

jmotivator said:

Marine 24th MEU Rapid Deployment Force, with the capability of deploying over 100 troops from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in 18 hours was tooling around in the Mediterranean at the ready. It would take a few hours at most to deploy them.

Click to expand...

The 24 MEU was in Djibouti on Sept 11, 2012. Warrior competition pits U.S. Marines against each other in mountains of Djibouti > 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit > Article Display Page

Also no military fighting organization has the ability to simply move anywhere in the world at 18 hours notice, especially a sea-borne fighting force.

CanadaJohn said:

Maybe if this was a Canadian Ambassador relying on the Canadian military for assistance, this might be credible because we do not have resources throughout the world but to suggest that the US military is incapable of any military action in North Africa within 8 hours of being informed. I'm not suggesting that such action would have been successful but to suggest the US couldn't even try is a sad commentary and perhaps an indictment of a country that spends around $700 billion a year on defense.

Click to expand...

If you read the article Gates is not saying that it would have been impossible to move asessts into the area, you're creating a strawman by pretending that his statement says something other than what it clearly does say

"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."

Click to expand...

Its about proper decision making and planning not just throwing assests into threatre. Also thinking that flying a fighter jet over the compound is going to "scare away" anyone is just stupid, or have we forgotten that in the 11 years in Afghanistan that fighers don't just run from aircraft, or the near 9 years we spent in Iraq that the enemy doesn't just run from aircraft, and did we also forget that Libya had been for months part of a very extensive air campaign wherein people not only knew from reputation of the militaries flying sorties over Libya but also from personal experience of seeing aircraft fly over head that they aren't going to just drop bombs in the middle of a city?

The notion that aircraft are going to scare people away plays into a sterotype that these people are some kind of primative caveman that will look in dumb-founded awe and fear and technology, and that's especially wrong for militiants and terrorists who have experience fighting technologically superior fighing forces or have studied those who had.

Its about not throwing military asessts and personel into a situation that you do not understand and know nothing about.

Wiseone said:

If you read the article Gates is not saying that it would have been impossible to move asessts into the area, you're creating a strawman by pretending that his statement says something other than what it clearly does say

Its about proper decision making and planning not just throwing assests into threatre. Also thinking that flying a fighter jet over the compound is going to "scare away" anyone is just stupid, or have we forgotten that in the 11 years in Afghanistan that fighers don't just run from aircraft, or the near 9 years we spent in Iraq that the enemy doesn't just run from aircraft, and did we also forget that Libya had been for months part of a very extensive air campaign wherein people not only knew from reputation of the militaries flying sorties over Libya but also from personal experience of seeing aircraft fly over head that they aren't going to just drop bombs in the middle of a city?

The notion that aircraft are going to scare people away plays into a sterotype that these people are some kind of primative caveman that will look in dumb-founded awe and fear and technology, and that's especially wrong for militiants and terrorists who have experience fighting technologically superior fighing forces or have studied those who had.

Its about not throwing military asessts and personel into a situation that you do not understand and know nothing about.

Click to expand...

Well, first off, there were assets on the ground who were informing both the State Department and the CIA what was happening on the ground so it was known, if only in a general sense, what was going on - to suggest they would be going in blind is false.

Secondly, when attempting to save American lives, the US military often makes the decision to attempt a rescue when little is known and danger is high. I recall shortly after the raid to kill bin Laden, there were American forces in Afghanistan who were pinned down and receiving enemy fire from multiple sources and the military sent in a couple of helicopters with a lot of Navy Seals and other special forces as well as regular forces to attempt a rescue. As it turns out, the rescue was successful but one of the helicopters went down and over a dozen Americans were lost in that crash including many special ops. There were no reprecussions to the administration in that case - there was no finger pointing saying that lives were foolishly lost trying to save other lives. This is what American special forces do for a living and they are a special breed of person who thinks nothing of risking their own life in order to save a fellow soldier or fellow American.

And again, to suggest that the strongest military in the world, one that spends about $700 billion a year, could not launch some type of counter offensive against a rag-tag bunch of Gaddafi hangers-on is to insult the professionalism and great skill of America's forces.

Wiseone said:

Exactly no one knew how events would unfold beforehand that's his entire point,
which is why we didn't just throw a bunch of military asessts into the area because we didn't know how it would turn out.



The 24 MEU was in Djibouti on Sept 11, 2012. Warrior competition pits U.S. Marines against each other in mountains of Djibouti > 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit > Article Display Page

Also no military fighting organization has the ability to simply move anywhere in the world at 18 hours notice, especially a sea-borne fighting force.



If you read the article Gates is not saying that it would have been impossible to move asessts into the area, you're creating a strawman by pretending that his statement says something other than what it clearly does say



Its about proper decision making and planning not just throwing assests into threatre. Also thinking that flying a fighter jet over the compound is going to "scare away" anyone is just stupid, or have we forgotten that in the 11 years in Afghanistan that fighers don't just run from aircraft, or the near 9 years we spent in Iraq that the enemy doesn't just run from aircraft, and did we also forget that Libya had been for months part of a very extensive air campaign wherein people not only knew from reputation of the militaries flying sorties over Libya but also from personal experience of seeing aircraft fly over head that they aren't going to just drop bombs in the middle of a city?

The notion that aircraft are going to scare people away plays into a sterotype that these people are some kind of primative caveman that will look in dumb-founded awe and fear and technology, and that's especially wrong for militiants and terrorists who have experience fighting technologically superior fighing forces or have studied those who had.

Its about not throwing military asessts and personel into a situation that you do not understand and know nothing about.

Click to expand...

This is horse sh** ^^^^

In June the TERRORIST, not the " protestors " blew a 12 foot hole in the Consulate Compound wall.

All other Western Consulate Personal had pulled out do to the increasing security concerns.

There were NUMEROUS prior request for increased security, and NO it wasn't turned down because of a lack of funds.

So your'e saying, 3 months after the Consulate was attacked, the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world couldn't get something in place ?

They couldn't devise a plan or put the assets in place off site, in Tripoli to Counter a larger attack ?

You see why your explanation makes zero sense.

Its not like they weren't warned.....repeatedly.

Grant said:

Why would you need Canada's approval to invade Canada, or carry out military exercises there?

There are dozens of countries the US has involved themselves in where no approval was given by the host country, but in my experience it has been for the good. If the US feels a country needs invading and they have the interests to do it they will, as with Panama and Grenada, just do it.

There is no reason whatsoever to invade Canada, unless you know something Canadians don't.

Click to expand...

and in this instance, there are indications the host country, either disapproved or rescinded permission to conduct a military exercise at benghazi

now, if you are insisting we should have invaded benghazi, that is another matter

American said:

Gates is playing Monday morning quarterback. He had no idea how the events would unfold beforehand.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Marine 24th MEU Rapid Deployment Force, with the capability of deploying over 100 troops from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in 18 hours was tooling around in the Mediterranean at the ready. It would take a few hours at most to deploy them.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Well, first off, there were assets on the ground who were informing both the State Department and the CIA what was happening on the ground so it was known, if only in a general sense, what was going on - to suggest they would be going in blind is false.

Secondly, when attempting to save American lives, the US military often makes the decision to attempt a rescue when little is known and danger is high. I recall shortly after the raid to kill bin Laden, there were American forces in Afghanistan who were pinned down and receiving enemy fire from multiple sources and the military sent in a couple of helicopters with a lot of Navy Seals and other special forces as well as regular forces to attempt a rescue. As it turns out, the rescue was successful but one of the helicopters went down and over a dozen Americans were lost in that crash including many special ops. There were no reprecussions to the administration in that case - there was no finger pointing saying that lives were foolishly lost trying to save other lives. This is what American special forces do for a living and they are a special breed of person who thinks nothing of risking their own life in order to save a fellow soldier or fellow American.

And again, to suggest that the strongest military in the world, one that spends about $700 billion a year, could not launch some type of counter offensive against a rag-tag bunch of Gaddafi hangers-on is to insult the professionalism and great skill of America's forces.

Click to expand...

The comparison to an engagement in Afghanistan doesn't really hold up. Engagements of that sort are a whole different situation, firstly there is QRF(Quick Reaction Force) on stand-by in any area of operations so unlike Benghazi people are prepped and ready. Secondly, communications in military operations rarely if ever completely fail there are back-up comms, back-ups to the back-ups, and back-ups for those as well so forces on the ground can give accurate or at least reasonable information. Thirdly, as all military operations in Afghanistan or anywhere are planned out in advance the commander who would make a call to send reinforcements would have an understanding of the situation as well as all sorts of other factors provided by intelligence services, not to mention active intel gathering during the course of the mission to keep updated to any changes. Of course a plan can go wrong, but certain things like terrain, disposition of local civilians, friendly forces on the ground, etc don't really change. Fourthly sending QRF into an engagement in Afghanistan, again where people on the ground can keep commanders updated to the situation, is different than sending a small Special Forces team into a crowded city in the middle of a riot where no one on the ground has communication with anyone else.

Consider this, supposing that you as a military planner knew that the US compound in Benghazi had been attacked and occupied and you don't know where the US personel are in the city. What exactly are you going to send in any Special Forces to do? You have no idea where to look, or if they are alive or dead, you have no idea what the enemy presense is on the ground, you have no idea if the point you select to drop off a Special Forces team by helicopter is going to be safe or not, because they sure as hell aren't going to paradrop into a city. For all you know you could be flying a few helicopter into a few hundred potentially hostile individuals armed with who knows what. Say you decide to land at the US compound itself, well hell that's been occupied by an unknown number of potentially hostile individuals, and even if they aren't hostile, landing a small team into the middle of a pissed of crowd of people is not going to go well.

In all liklehood if you go in blind or knowing only a fraction of the information you're just going to make the problem worse, because know do you not only have to figure out the status and location of the embassy personel but also how you're going to get the SF team you sent in after them out safely and just hope to hell they don't get killed as well.

Yes the US military has a massive budget, but that doesn't mean it can do anything, anywhere, with no warning whatsoever.

Fenton said:

This is horse sh** ^^^^

In June the TERRORIST, not the " protestors " blew a 12 foot hole in the Consulate Compound wall.

All other Western Consulate Personal had pulled out do to the increasing security concerns.

There were NUMEROUS prior request for increased security, and NO it wasn't turned down because of a lack of funds.

So your'e saying, 3 months after the Consulate was attacked, the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world couldn't get something in place ?

They couldn't devise a plan or put the assets in place off site, in Tripoli to Counter a larger attack ?

You see why your explanation makes zero sense.

Its not like they weren't warned.....repeatedly.

Click to expand...

I'm speaking of the night of the attack not anything prior to that. Yes back in June better decisions could have been made, but keep in mind that its never been a standard procedure to put into place some kind of military quick reaction force to an embassy, let alone a consulate, that suffered an attack. There have been numerous embassy attacks in the last decade where bombs have been set on the wall or the gate, but none of those places got a special quick reaction force based close by for support in case something else happened. Lastly, keep in mind that the consulate was occupied in less than 20 minutes, even if the US military had men and equipment in Tripoli it would not have arrived in time either.

Also I didn't say it was due to lack of funds, nor was I speaking about planning from June but only about the night of the attack itself. Don't put words into my mouth.

justabubba said:

and in this instance, there are indications the host country, either disapproved or rescinded permission to conduct a military exercise at benghazi

now, if you are insisting we should have invaded benghazi, that is another matter

Click to expand...

You need Libya's permission to save Americans who are being attacked by Libyans?

Americans should have done everything on their power to save their fellow Americans. It's an understanding throughout the military that that is what their comrades will do when they're in trouble.

When American lives are at extreme risk, and later killed, the Commander in Chief should do everything he can to get his fellow Americans rescued. He should not boogie off to Vegas for a glad-handing fund raiser. Is that what you would have done?

Grant said:

You need Libya's permission to save Americans who are being attacked by Libyans?

Americans should have done everything on their power to save their fellow Americans. It's an understanding throughout the military that that is what their comrades will do when they're in trouble.

When American lives are at extreme risk, and later killed, the Commander in Chief should do everything he can to get his fellow Americans rescued. He should not boogie off to Vegas for a glad-handing fund raiser. Is that what you would have done?

Click to expand...

You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication, that other countries do not have to observe ours.

Wiseone said:

The comparison to an engagement in Afghanistan doesn't really hold up. Engagements of that sort are a whole different situation, firstly there is QRF(Quick Reaction Force) on stand-by in any area of operations so unlike Benghazi people are prepped and ready. Secondly, communications in military operations rarely if ever completely fail there are back-up comms, back-ups to the back-ups, and back-ups for those as well so forces on the ground can give accurate or at least reasonable information. Thirdly, as all military operations in Afghanistan or anywhere are planned out in advance the commander who would make a call to send reinforcements would have an understanding of the situation as well as all sorts of other factors provided by intelligence services, not to mention active intel gathering during the course of the mission to keep updated to any changes. Of course a plan can go wrong, but certain things like terrain, disposition of local civilians, friendly forces on the ground, etc don't really change. Fourthly sending QRF into an engagement in Afghanistan, again where people on the ground can keep commanders updated to the situation, is different than sending a small Special Forces team into a crowded city in the middle of a riot where no one on the ground has communication with anyone else.

Consider this, supposing that you as a military planner knew that the US compound in Benghazi had been attacked and occupied and you don't know where the US personel are in the city. What exactly are you going to send in any Special Forces to do? You have no idea where to look, or if they are alive or dead, you have no idea what the enemy presense is on the ground, you have no idea if the point you select to drop off a Special Forces team by helicopter is going to be safe or not, because they sure as hell aren't going to paradrop into a city. For all you know you could be flying a few helicopter into a few hundred potentially hostile individuals armed with who knows what. Say you decide to land at the US compound itself, well hell that's been occupied by an unknown number of potentially hostile individuals, and even if they aren't hostile, landing a small team into the middle of a pissed of crowd of people is not going to go well.

In all liklehood if you go in blind or knowing only a fraction of the information you're just going to make the problem worse, because know do you not only have to figure out the status and location of the embassy personel but also how you're going to get the SF team you sent in after them out safely and just hope to hell they don't get killed as well.

Yes the US military has a massive budget, but that doesn't mean it can do anything, anywhere, with no warning whatsoever.

Click to expand...

The British had pulled out of the area because of the attacks on their facilities, as did the Red Cross. And despite the warnings that an attack was imminent, there was no intelligence on the area? Nothing? No advance planning? The American military were completely blindsided by a bunch of ragtag terrorists and you use that as an excuse for the loss of lives. You apparently want a military where no one gets hurt but, if they do, it's every man and woman for themselves. This high level ignorance of the situation should not be an excuse. Instead it should be the cause of more firings.

Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks - CBS News

So since Stevens said he didn't want more security, when the attack came Obama decided to dish out some tough love, right?

Gimmesometruth said:

You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication, that other countries do not have to observe ours.

Click to expand...

Both premises are accurate and there is much historical evidence to document them.