werepossum
Elite Member
I also have a big problem with the fact that calls for assistance were ignored, but it's not a totally black and white issue. Someone made the decision to send away the Marine and CIA security from the diplomatic mission, send away the gun ships, stand down our SAR and quick reaction force. That's a terrible decision probably made for Libyan image concerns, with a rosy reading of the Libyan security situation. However, once that happened, our ability to effectively respond was greatly compromised. Mogadishu showed us what can happen when we send in military forces without adequate backup, reserves, and reaction forces - they can get chopped up piecemeal. In theory, one Blackhawk or two Little Birds can deliver a heavy team of Special Forces operators who can hit like a platoon. In practice however, it's very easy to lose a chopper to an RPG or even just mechanical failure. Then your reaction force becomes another tiny force in need of rescuing.
Viscerally, I agree that Obama's reaction is absolutely despicable. Intellectually however I'm reminded of Eisenhower going to bed early; for very different reasons, each had no real ability to influence events. I know by virtue of your career that the slogan "no one left behind" hits you much more deeply than the rest of us, and I agree that it's worth sending reinforcements to avoid a unit or especially civilians being wiped out even if you know you'll likely to take even heavier casualties by doing so. It's a covenant. But again, you know intellectually that you don't throw more lives away if you cannot effectively reinforce. How many military units have been given the command to stand and fight knowing they cannot survive? This may have been that situation due to bad decisions made earlier, so that reinforcing one post of civilians meant weakening and risking another if not having your warriors stranded somewhere in between and in need of rescue themsevels. Sending all the warriors from Tripoli would be disastrous if that larger target was also on the attack list, something one cannot know until after the fact.
It's absolutely indefensible to post diplomats or military forces in Indian country without adequate reinforcements. It's unfortunately not all that rare though, especially with embassies and diplomatic missions.
Number one, never leave diplomats exposed with adequate American security forces.
Number two, never leave those American security forces without effective reserves, meaning an in-country America quick reaction force capable of reaching one post without fatally weakening another, with their own helicopter transport and in hostile or Muslim nations their own SAR and medivac assets.
