Was the raid simply a lashing out by militants against an American target? Was the attack orchestrated as part of some covert plot by the CIA themselves, angling with al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists? Was the attack the fruit of a rebellion within the ranks of American government, or even the military, to use as political clout in order to undermine the Obama administration? Was it part of some plot that we can't even catch a glimpse of from here at home, behind our television and computer screens? We will probably never know.
What bothers me the most though, is how this is being played out politically, in the court of public opinion. Let's face it, people die in hostile war zones every day. Benghazi was no different. This is not to denigrate the sacrifices made there and the loss of life that day, but this is the cost of war and business is good for the American war machine. While Republicans will rail against Obama for reportedly ordering a stand-down of forces to defend the consulate in the middle of a terrorist capital on the other side of the planet, let us not forget that it was Dick Cheney who ordered the stand-down of American air defenses on 9/11, before he ordered the shoot down of Flight 93 and then lied about it for years. (There are still people today who actually believe the Flight 93 band-of-heroes myth, and that the plane crashed in Shanskville. It did not.)
Lies upon lies surround 9/11, and no one seems to even care anymore, that so many questions are still left unanswered. Not the Democrats, and least of all the Republicans. Nearly three-thousand people were killed right here in two of America's greatest cities, and that attack was used as a pretext for a war that has gone on now for more than a decade. A war without end against an invisible enemy, with approximately 70,000 American dead and wounded, and more than a million civilian deaths. All of this madness, and we still don't know who is responsible for 9/11. All of this, and Republicans are screaming bloody murder as if the death of an American politician and his CIA bodyguards in Libya is so much more important than the lives of so many other Americans.
Let's just have a look at this on a tactical level for a moment. POTUS does not micro-manage security at every diplomatic mission around the world. This was not even an embassy, it was a consulate. The local and regional security was the job of the military assets already in place. Nonetheless, when told of the attack, Obama deployed Delta Force, the elite commando team specializing in hostage rescue. By the time they landed in their forward operating base in Sicily, that battle in Benghazi was over. If Obama or anyone in his administration did order a stand-down, it was more than likely on the recommendation of military and/or intelligence officers in the region.
While this may seem counter-intuitive to some readers, a stand-down order is not necessarily treasonous and can be born of legitimate tactical concerns. Understanding that it took weeks for them to sort out what even happened there in Benghazi, and that even today we still don't even really know who was responsible for that attack, it is not at all unreasonable for a military commander to refuse to send in troops without reliable intelligence on the situation. Whether it was a local commander, or the President himself refusing to deploy troops on some blind cowboy mission is not an act of treason, it is tactics 101 to not allow yourself to be baited. Imagine how it would have looked if Obama wound up with another "Black Hawk Down" scenario, like we had in 1993 at The Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia where terrorists baited US forces into a kill box. For all we know, Obama might have actually saved dozens, even hundreds of American lives by ordering them to hold, if it was even POTUS who actually did order the so-called stand-down.
Of course, that is speculative now at this point, but we certainly can't fault him or his commanders for exercising some basic common sense in tactics. You don't go walking into a shooting gallery wearing a blindfold.
What is not speculative however, is that neither Republicans nor Democrats bother to ask what we are even doing in Libya in the first place.
Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya
A Few Interesting Facts About Libya
Why are we in Libya?
Central Banks Are Target Theme of Western Forces
Also, check out this latest article, chock full of links and info on Benghazi:
It’s Dishonest to Talk about Benghazi Without Talking About the Syrian War
Both Parties Are Trying to Sweep the Bigger Story Under the Rug
According to Democrats, today’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi are nothing but a partisan witch hunt.
According to Republicans, the Obama administration committed treason in it’s handling of Benghazi … and then tried to cover it up.
Both parties are avoiding the bigger picture … The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have been using Benghazi as the center of U.S. efforts to arm the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.
Read the rest at at: Washington's Blog
[This article names the facility as a consulate. It appears as though those reports are not accurate. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi states, "Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status."]
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment