A Point Not Made In The Benghazi Hearing

Reasonable people may disagree on whether or not releasing military assets would have gotten to Benghazi in time. There is however one consideration that your humble servant has not seen addressed.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that forces could have not gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives or reduce the injuries that occurred. They could, however, have gotten there in time to punish the perpetrators; to hunt them down and engage them and bring them to appropriate justice?

Was the potential for conflict with the Islamist mob what generated the ‘stand down’ order? Does that order represent, in sharp relief, the fairy tale that the current administration and a generation of politically correct but naïve journalists doggedly represent in regards to Islamist goals and tactics?

Lt. Col Gibson, in Greg Hick’s telling was livid at the stand down order. His commitment to rush to the sound of gunfire and save lives was unequivocal. His chain of command, however, did not share his commitment. There is little doubt, based on what we know of Special Forces that Col. Gibson and his three men would have taken on hundreds if necessary. They’ve done it before!

Greg Hicks was prepared to put himself and his own staff in jeopardy by sending what scant resources he had available to Benghazi from Tripoli. Col. Gibson and his men were ready to go. The diplomatic staff in Benghazi was in severe jeopardy under an organized attack. When the powers that be opine that they could not clearly identify the conditions on the ground they also could not, by way of logic, determine when that conflict would end. The Consulate and the Annex were under fire as were the vehicles evacuating staff from the Consulate. The battle could have gone on longer, it could have been worse. Did the chain of command need the Jihadists to get tired and go home, therefore clarifying the conditions on the ground. Wait, wait no; we knew the conditions on the ground there was a drone over the Consulate. The drone operator on duty at the time spoke with Sean Hannity on the radio yesterday, there is little doubt the chain of command had a live feed to the happenings in Benghazi.

So, once again we have not responded to a terror attack. No punishment, no retribution, no arrests,no pressure and no price to pay.

You may or may not have noticed that Middle Eastern based terror is seldom if ever directed at Russia or its predecessor the Soviet Union. Once upon a time in the 1970’s there was Middle Eastern terror directed at Russia. The Russian response was so overwhelming that the terror sought new targets of opportunity.

The lesson simply is that terror met with overwhelming force delivers the message that ‘it’s just not worth it’. That message has not been delivered. So long as political correctness, false narratives and restrictive rules of engagement demand that we not see, or address the threats for what they are we can be guaranteed that terror will continue and increase. Every lack of response is met in the Islamic world as another example that the U.S. is weak, decadent and in decline. That narrative strengthens the resolve of those who would do us harm.

  • Bob

    Landreaux:

    I agree with the premise you give stating that Washington had no idea how long the attack would last and the “Stand down” order was reprehensible.

    I do however question that “they could have gotton there in time to punish the perpetrators…..to hunt down and engage them”Nations have the authority to protect your embassy on the grounds that embassies are supposed to be the residence of the official representing that countries government and as such the ground it sits on belongs to that government.No one is allowed to enter that property without the ambassadors or his representatives permission. International diplomacy dictates however that if you aren’t going to send troops to protect your embassy grounds and staff when it’s under seige then you don’t have any authority to send troops into a sovereign nation going door to door “hunting down and engaging them” for retribution.You start this and it can only lead to an ORIGINAL BAD DECISION of not going in to protect your people escalating into an international incident.

    I admit I am not as familiar with the history of the area as Landreaux but using the price Russias occupation of Afganistan paid as an example I don’t think the fact that Russian overwhelming response to terrorism is the cause of it being attacked a lot less than the United States.If I remember right 35 or 40 years ago Russia had not only oil contracts with the Middle East countries but military weapons contracts as well.Since that time the Iron Curtain has fallen and they have developed oil in the former Soviet Union.

    In Vietnam as well as the Middle East the people we have fought then and are fighting now have been fighting this battle for years.We made the mistake fighting in Vietnam that we could pound them into the ground with carpet bombing and superior air power.We found out they are willing to go on for years and years to come and pay any price to accomplish their goal.In addition we are fighting on there land and realize the west (America)doesn’t have the patience to go the long term either emotionally nor financially.

    LEARN FROM THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM WHICH WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING TODAY.

  • Bob

    WONDER WHY RUSSIA DOESN’T GET ATTACKED BY TERRORIST:

    The article below entitled “US Is Warned Of Russia Arm’s Sale To Syria”dated 9th of May 2013 (today)from the Breitbart website WILL LAY IT ALL OUT FOR YOU !

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/09/US-is-warned-of-Russia-arms-sale-to-Syria

    I REST MY CASE!

  • Bob

    Anyone else notice that the article says that just THE MEDIA WAS EVACUATED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? Perhaps it could have been the SMOKE AND ODER WERE GENERATED FROM QUESTIONS Press Secretary Jay Carney was getting about BENGHAZI?

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/whiteboard/2013/5/Media_evacuated_from_White_House_after_smoke_odor__alarm_.html