Whats your source? Hell whats your argument? You're just stating it as if its a matter of fact, and you aren't even defining what you exactly mean by response. A UAV was over head, in response, to the attack but I doubt that's what you mean by response. So could you please define your argument a little better? And being an "intelligence officer" you should know that there's more to response than time, there's the degree of the desired response, obviously larger responses take more time, and there's the location of assets and personnel desired for the response to consider as well. Something I think even a 2nd rate intelligence officer should know.
Are you unaware of the story? Al Quada attacked a consulate in Benghazi, Libya. They used small arms fire supported by heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars to over run the consulate. They set fire to the buildings. This alarmed the consulate staff who set up both open phone lines and encrypted lines to beg for help.
A while later Al Qaeda forces engaged four CIA operators who arrived, rounded up the survivors, recovered Smith's body and left to return to the CIA Annex. They continued to engage them all the way back to the annex.
The embassy in Tripoli sent a small aircraft to Benghazi with a few people on board. They had so little force they were unable to leave the airport in any reasonable amount of time to assist the Americans.
Africom, who had UAVs watching chemical agent storage areas, diverted an unarmed UAV about an hour into the battle.
There were forces in the region capable of responding (and rendering aid) but were not launched in response.
Al Qaeda attacked the CIA Annex killing two defenders.
The president attended a fund raiser.
You want to know what a response to an armed attack is? A response is sending assets--people, aircraft, armed UAVs, capable of shooting back to aid in the defense of our people and property. It is not answering the phone, offering a prayer, notifying next of kin, or lying to the American people for the next three weeks.
I hope that clears up what a response is.
It's a military operation that crosses a border, what more do you want?
I shall be more careful in explaining the obvious to you in the future. A cross border operation where we are intending to engage in combat operations on another nation's territory, when we are not at war with that nation, is not something a local commander can approve.
We are talking about US forces coming to Benghazi to kill people and break things. We are not talking about unarmed planes landing to pick up the bodies and fly home.
Also you keep talking as if there is one rule for all cross border operations, in fact ROE changes all over the world, to cross one border is not the same as crossing any other border. The fact that you haven't talked about crossing the Libyan border, and instead just borders in general, makes me think you don't know this fact.
I was here to discus Obama's Benghazi Massacre and the Abandoned Four. What were you discussing?
'm sorry did you not read my quotes from the State Department investigation? Military forces did CROSS THE BORDER and did so WITHOUT Presidential authorization, its a pure and simple fact that cannot be denied.
Not to conduct combat operations. The only response was by a force already in the country. I no longer remember whether they were armed or not. From memory I believe even the unarmed UAVs were already in Libya.
And your suggestion is to have the CJCS move military assets? You clearly, CLEARLY, do not know that the CJCS is NOT a commander, and has NO command authority in the United States military. The highest levels of military command in the world are currently the Unified Combatant Command Commanders, ie the Commanders of AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc who report directly to the SECDEF NOT to the President. Your suggestion is completely off base and shows your ignorance of how command works at that level.
The Chairman acts as the president's principal military advisor. I believe he was with the SECDEF when Benghazi was discussed. The White House Situation room has plenty of capability to pass the president's orders to the combatant commanders. Given that the SECDEF was already at the White House doesn't it make sense to you to use the White House Communications capabilities to discuss, coordinate and issue orders?
I think you intentionally misunderstand. No biggie. Some people are like that.
And do you have a source about these aircraft? Do you know that they could have been launched in 5 to 15 minutes? What if they were not fully armed or fueled, you don't know that, you're just assuming and making guesses. Again, something a decent intelligence officer would not be doing? And a decent intelligence officer would have a source, not personal anecdotes and opinions.
It is possible under this president that no military forces anywhere in the world are ready to respond to surprise situations.
When I was on active duty we had ready forces all over the world including alert forces that could be aloft in a very few minutes. The first aircraft launched most likely would not have had the right weapons on board to successfully engage the Al Qaeda forces in Benghazi. But their presence overhead would have changed the attack dynamics.
The second flight would have had time to change stores to something more appropriate to support ground operations.
Everything you've posted is an opinion. Facts have sources, facts are undeniable, facts are backed.
SHOW ME A SOURCE
If you don't already know everything I have mentioned it is because you choose to remain in the dark.
