Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Dilemma of attire: Benghazi report


RavenHawk

Recommended Posts

What is this?  We didn’t send troops to relieve the Consulate because our leadership didn’t know if they should send the Marines in uniform or civilian clothes?  You mean the WMs could go in their thongs?  I thought it was bad to tell that a video started the riot.  If you want a clip in how to do this, these people in the Whitehouse need to watch this clip from “The Wind and the Lion”.  This is how you do it!  Hoorah!

https://myspace.com/oceanside_gangbusters/video/u.s.-marines-invade-embassy-part-two/108987328

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You couldn't make this stuff up... the mind truly boggles.  And the leader who ultimately was responsible was not only not sanctioned in any way, she's going to most likely be rewarded with the highest office in the land.  Some jobs should never be entrusted to the Peter Principle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

What is this?  We didn’t send troops to relieve the Consulate because our leadership didn’t know if they should send the Marines in uniform or civilian clothes?  You mean the WMs could go in their thongs?  I thought it was bad to tell that a video started the riot.  If you want a clip in how to do this, these people in the Whitehouse need to watch this clip from “The Wind and the Lion”.  This is how you do it!  Hoorah!

https://myspace.com/oceanside_gangbusters/video/u.s.-marines-invade-embassy-part-two/108987328

This isn't the whole story.  It really didn't matter how many times the platoon changed their clothes, it was all too late.

In a nutshell, inside the Department of Defense (DoD) there was a delay executing the Secretary of Defense's order, as well as a miscommunication regarding what that order was, i.e., order to deploy vs. prepare to deploy.

  • "By 7:00 p.m. in Washington [1:00 a.m. in Benghazi], nearly three hours after the attacks began, the Secretary issued what he believed, then and now, to be the only order needed to more the FAST platoons, the CIF, and the U.S. SOF.   Yet nearly two more hours elapsed before the Secretary's orders were relayed to those forces.  Several more hours elapsed before any of those forces moved."  (I: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI, p. 89)
  • According to the Secretary of Defense (at the time), "The President made clear that we ought to use all of the resources at our disposal to try to make sure we did everything possible to try to save lives there."  (I: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI, p. 87)  Therefore, based on what the President said, “According to the Secretary [of Defense], within an hour of his return to the Pentagon, he issued an order to deploy the identified assets.”  (I: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI, p. 89)  I.e., the assets identified (e.g., FAST platoon stationed in Rota, Spain) during a meeting convened once he returned to the Pentagon from his White House meeting.  His order to DEPLOY turned into PREPARE TO DEPLOY; somehow in the chain of command. This is evident in the testimony of the FAST Platoon Commander: "Q: What were your specific orders at that time?  A: Prepare my platoon to deploy to Libya."  (I: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI, p. 153)  No assets were deployed to the location of action because only an order prepare to deploy was interpreted.

It's my contention that it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  No one was going to send assets to Benghazi anyway (Tripoli is 400 miles from Benghazi):

  1. "Admiral Tidd had this to say about deploying a FAST Team to Benghazi: 'We were looking at two FAST teams, but it very, very soon became evident that everybody was leaving Benghazi. And so I don’t remember if it was just before the [White House meeting] or during the [meeting] or just right after. By the time we came out of the [meeting], it was pretty clear that nobody was going to be left in Benghazi. And so the decision—I think, at the [meeting], there was some discussion—but as I recall, we weren’t going to send them to Benghazi, because everybody was going to be back in Tripoli by the time we could actually get them there.'"
  2. “Overall theme: getting forces ready to deploy in case the crisis expands and a real threat materializes against Embassy Tripoli.”
  3. "From the Defense Department’s perspective, when the orders were issued, the plan on the ground was for the people in Benghazi, with the assistance from Team Tripoli, to make their way back to Tripoli. It would provide assets to augment the security in Tripoli where needed, and provide evacuation of the wounded and deceased. Several witnesses indicated that despite the Secretary’s orders, the plan was not to insert any asset into Benghazi; their understanding was that assets needed to be sent to Tripoli to augment security at the Embassy, and that the State Department was working to move the State personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli."

The whole event is riddled with delays, miscommunication, and lack of urgency.  The sole issue of the Marines changing their clothes several times is insignificant in the greater context of what happened.  What is interesting is that according to the report, President Obama did his duty; Secretary Clinton didn't do anything but lie about why the attack started; and although I hate both of those tools I cannot find anything (yet) in the reports that would implicate them in the deaths of four Americans.  What is strange is why Clinton would lie in the first place.  Doesn't make sense...  really kind of stupid (in the context of what I've read so far).

What's more: "Perhaps given the timing of the 7:30 p.m. meeting with the White House on September 11, shortly after all surviving State Department personnel had evacuated from the Mission compound to the Annex, there may have been a sense the worst of the attack was over. Indeed, Winnefeld stated when he was first briefed around 4:30 p.m. about the events in Benghazi, he recalled being told there had been an attack and the attack was over.  The job left to be done was no longer a hostage rescue situation but was at best, recovering Stevens from a hospital and, at worst, recovering Stevens’s remains."  (I: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI, p. 164)

There's really so much more, but you really need to read the report for yourself.  It isn't a bad read actually...

Edited by Aftermath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

What is this?  We didn’t send troops to relieve the Consulate because our leadership didn’t know if they should send the Marines in uniform or civilian clothes?  You mean the WMs could go in their thongs?  I thought it was bad to tell that a video started the riot.  If you want a clip in how to do this, these people in the Whitehouse need to watch this clip from “The Wind and the Lion”.  This is how you do it!  Hoorah!

https://myspace.com/oceanside_gangbusters/video/u.s.-marines-invade-embassy-part-two/108987328

What you specifically call out above isn't an example of why we didn't send troops, all assets were being deployed to Tripoli anyway, it's an example of a lack of leadership in Washington, no one took charge...

"The issue of military attire versus civilian clothes illustrated no one seemed to be taking charge and making final decisions. After the State Department request at the 7:30 p.m. White House meeting, the Defense Department began working the issue. Documents from the Defense Department show, and the FAST Platoon Commander testified it was well into the next afternoon on September 12th before the final decision was made. He testified further the Marines changed in and out of uniform and civilian clothes several times because the orders kept changing."   (I: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. FACILITIES IN BENGHAZI, p. 167)

Edited by Aftermath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From listening to the guys who were there and wanted to go they definitely could have gotten there in time.

It's unreal how they hesitated to save American lives in order to meet over how it would look politically! One thing we were always sure about as Americans was that our country would move heaven and hell to save even one of us no matter the odds....that they were behind us, keeping us safe....and now we know that it's not true...or at least its not true right now.

Also, I would like to back wheel kick in the head whatever ass-hat decided to deny extra security because machine guns aren't "aesthetically pleasing"!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aftermath said:

What you specifically call out above isn't an example of why we didn't send troops, all assets were being deployed to Tripoli anyway, it's an example of a lack of leadership in Washington, no one took charge...

That was the point.  The leadership was looking at more excuses instead acting.  FAST, CIF, and SOF are all groups that train for these scenarios.  They are already “Ready to Deploy”.  All you have to do is say “GO”.  Before insertion, the drones can go in to reconnoiter.  If all clear then hang out in the area for a while and return home.  If not, then go in hot and kick butt.  Even if you are too late, you still need to secure the facility.  When you have leadership at the highest levels that do not know the business end of a rifle from the other, you are just asking for casualties.  Our leadership just doesn’t know how to use the military.  That is dangerous and that has already triggered things that won’t  come to fruition until this current Administration is out of office.  This also explains the lack of direction from the leadership when we retreated from Yemen and when our sailors surrendered.  It all goes toward supporting the case of incompetency.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

 

But, one commander told the committee that as they were readying themselves to deploy they kept having to change in and out of their uniforms four times.

http: //www.politico.com/blogs/benghazi-report-findings-2016/2016/06/state-rescuer-uniforms-benghazi-224875

No, it wasn’t the changing of clothes that was the delay, but it did reveal the dilemma of the mindset at the highest levels.  They could have simply wore civvies underneath their cammies and they’d be ready to go.  It take less than five minutes to throw on cammies.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how they do it  (someone else's kids).   Because Libya is apparently the US's job.   I never made the purchase decision to buy the welfare of Libya.  So much for free markets.   Freer markets tend to be more local markets e.g. someone who lives many hundreds of miles closer to Libya should pay for it.

Meanwhile back at the base, the only whimper of opposition to the "Socialist" Barack Obama's policy in Libya publicly put on display is "Bombing's Not Enough!" which is almost as surprising as still using Myspace, or still not-clicking Quote and not-typing underneath the quote box.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2016 at 2:30 PM, RavenHawk said:

No, it wasn’t the changing of clothes that was the delay, but it did reveal the dilemma of the mindset at the highest levels.  They could have simply wore civvies underneath their cammies and they’d be ready to go.  It take less than five minutes to throw on cammies.

 

I get that. I  was pointing out,more like not understanding why  they were ordered to change out 4 times,isn't that unheard of? I never heard of anything like that. My first thought was distraction distraction, something to cause distraction to waste time,stalling , but why & for who?  what was the real reason  behind this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forget the CIA contractors were not in the embassy proper but rather in a CIA "safehouse".  Considering that what they were doing there was sneaky and under-the-table, it is perfectly logical that the US government might be hesitant to send a rescue party in uniform with the American flag stitched on their shoulders.  An unmarked extraction team might cause much less future trouble for the US, the CIA, and our relations with Libya as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You forget the CIA contractors were not in the embassy proper but rather in a CIA "safehouse".  Considering that what they were doing there was sneaky and under-the-table, it is perfectly logical that the US government might be hesitant to send a rescue party in uniform with the American flag stitched on their shoulders.  An unmarked extraction team might cause much less future trouble for the US, the CIA, and our relations with Libya as a whole.

either way, they would've stood out. you know there's no good relationship with Libya, it's a failed state thanks to Hillary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PEOPLE, PEOPLE - read the report...

First, no one was going to go to Benghazi.  All assets were ordered to deploy to Tripoli (400 miles from Benghazi)...  it doesn't matter if the Marines changed their clothes or not, it doesn't matter if one or all the Marines you know (whether they were there or not) believe they could have gotten there on time; they weren't being deployed to Benghazi.  It's like there's an uprising in Cleveland, Ohio and the National Guard was sent to Louisville, KY...  WTF - it doesn't matter.

Second, the Tripoli Team was sent to Benghazi, as soon as they could, to bring all non-essentials & Amb. back to Tripoli.  That was what was being communicated in Washington and one of the reasons U.S. assets were ordered to be deployed to Tripoli.

Third, no one knew about the Annex and the Mission Compound was NEVER a U.S. facility- it was leased and it was temporary.  Sorry, but because it was a leased facility there was no security requirements, which means no budget and every little priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

You forget the CIA contractors were not in the embassy proper but rather in a CIA "safehouse".  Considering that what they were doing there was sneaky and under-the-table, it is perfectly logical that the US government might be hesitant to send a rescue party in uniform with the American flag stitched on their shoulders.  An unmarked extraction team might cause much less future trouble for the US, the CIA, and our relations with Libya as a whole.

In retrospect that did not matter, Libya has (for the most part) ceased to be a state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.