ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on January 17th, 2014 at 3:43 am

Senate Report Blames General Dempsey for Lack of Benghazi Rescue Operation

» by in: US Military

It looks like General Dempsey is receiving some political payback for something that likely has nothing to do with Benghazi:

The Senate Intelligence Committee singled out Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of exhibiting poor leadership and insufficient planning in their report on the Sept. 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The committee on Wednesday released a declassified report on the attacks by al-Qaida linked militants that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

“The tenure of … General Martin Dempsey, has been marked by what we view as significant deficiencies in command,” the report states. “From Syria to Benghazi, there has been either a profound inability or clear unwillingness to identify and prevent problems before they arise. Given the known operating environment in Benghazi, much less North Africa, a strong military leader would have ensured there was a viable plan in place to rescue Americans should the need arise.”  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but are we supposed to believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is supposed to micromanage preparations for rescue operations across the entire world?

Tags: , , ,
- 1,305 views
21
  • Mike Morgan
    5:42 am on January 17th, 2014 1

    He didn’t need to micromanage them; but he did need to make certain the folks under him were up to the challenge. And the same with the President.

  • Liz
    6:02 am on January 17th, 2014 2

    I’m sure if General Dempsey had started placing troops wherever he thought they were needed “From Syria to Benghazi” to “prevent problems before they arise” that would have been just fine. I know the majority of the Senate has no idea how this all works, but actually reading it is no less depressing. This is why I stopped watching the news ten years ago.

  • Glans
    6:16 am on January 17th, 2014 3

    Here are some highlights of the report. (I haven’t read the appendices yet.)

    page 24
    According to a January 4, 2013, letter from the Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, “[t]he nature of the attacks suggested they did not involve significant pre-planning.”

    page 28
    There were no US military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi to help defend the Temporary Mission Facility and its Annex on September 11 and 12, 2012.

    page 29
    The Committee has reviewed the allegations that US personnel, including in the Intelligence Community or Department of Defense, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

    page 32
    In finished reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the Mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The intelligence community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.

    page 40
    Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia,
    AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks. Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic; …

    (I.e. some were al-Qaeda, some weren’t. Glans.)

    page 41
    Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video …

  • Liz
    7:02 am on January 17th, 2014 4

    Well, clearly the General failed on this point: “There were no US military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi to help defend the Temporary Mission Facility and its Annex on September 11 and 12, 2012.”

    US resources should have been in position to intervene every and any time needed, for any makeshift diplomatic facility anywhere around the world. Of course, the General has no authority to place troops anywhere he sees fit…but whatever.

  • setnaffa
    7:59 am on January 17th, 2014 5

    The report smells like a catbox to me:

    According to a January 4, 2013, letter from the Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, “[t]he nature of the attacks suggested they did not involve significant pre-planning.”

    Yeah. Because every protester carries mortar tubes and has an innate sense of how to set them up and find the targets with the first rounds…

  • setnaffa
    8:04 am on January 17th, 2014 6

    @4 you are exactly right. Placing US diplomats without “US military resources in position to intervene in short order” is either negligent or worse. Especially when they are handling obviously dangerous things like the CIA weapons recovery program, storing the British weapons, and so on.

  • Liz
    8:15 am on January 17th, 2014 7

    #6: I was being facetious, Setnaffa. If the US military had to be in a position to protect every diplomatic outpost, it wouldn’t be possible to have diplomatic outposts.

  • Liz
    8:16 am on January 17th, 2014 8

    Switch that, we could have diplomatic outposts…but only close to military bases. Obviously all of this requires approval from the host countries. We can’t even fly over a country’s airspace without clearance.

  • Smokes
    8:28 am on January 17th, 2014 9

    This is the State Department doing its typical blame deflection. It is their responsibility to establish some sort of Regional Security Office or utilize an existing nearby one in addition to other intelligence agency information to properly asses and plan for events based on the threat level range.

    The lazy a-holes at State have become too accustomed to hiding behind the collective shield of the armed forces the last decade or so downrange and forget that aside from the detachment the MCESG provides to guard the embassy we’re not there to serve as a giant meat shield for their ineptness.

    I’m so embarrassed my country is filled with disgusting, cowardly, greedy, lying, pigs that constantly throw the military under the bus all while lining their greasy pockets with blood money. F**k we deserve to be taken over Original Red Dawn style. Wolverines!

  • Smokes
    8:29 am on January 17th, 2014 10

    Heh I wrote asses instead of assess and the filter didn’t catch it. :razz:

  • setnaffa
    8:34 am on January 17th, 2014 11

    @ Liz,

    When we’re doing diplomatic stuff in stable countries, I would agree; but in countries like Somalia, Libya, and so on, we should not place diplomats and expect them to guard/recover weapons and defend them from al Qaeda affiliates with two Berettas and a microphone. And the President can order US Forces to cross borders to protect US soil (which embassies and consulates are).

  • Liz
    9:05 am on January 17th, 2014 12

    Setnaffa, When we’re doing diplomatic stuff in stable countries, I would agree; but in countries like Somalia, Libya, and so on, we should not place diplomats and expect them to guard/recover weapons and defend them from al Qaeda affiliates with two Berettas and a microphone.

    Reality check: Diplomacy is the art of saying, “Nice doggie” until you can find a large rock. If you need actual serious military cover for a diplomatic outpost, it isn’t a diplomatic outpost.
    Obviously the president can order US forces to cross borders. You realize the kind of time that takes, I hope.

  • Louis Dechert
    9:42 am on January 17th, 2014 13

    Liz and Setnaffa, both of you are right, given experience adult leadership in DC. Kennedy established clear lines of authority in the “country team” concept and policy.
    That pertained at least up to B Clinton’s time. I do not know when or if it ended. If still in effect now, it has obviously been gutted. Basically, in embattled areas, all US efforts were under a designated military commander–sometimes the DAO. In better or improving situations (as IRAQ when Obama pulled out) the Ambassador is in command. However, the concept has been warped over the years by ad hoc changes–maybe not all of them bad. For example, under original concept, CIA in-country was on the team but disallowed to do overt combat operations by national action memos.
    And when I said ALL US efforts were on the team that is what I meant: USAID, MILGPS, CIA, STATE, ATTACHES, EMBASSY, Civilian workers, NGO, everything. Rumsfeld, et al, threw all that away before we went into IRAQ, and only after Gen Petraeus got it back in order were we successful—in IRAQ.
    LTD

  • Mike Morgan
    9:55 pm on January 17th, 2014 14

    @13, you’re right.

    @12, Less than two minutes if you have a leader with moral courage.

  • Mike Morgan (setnaffa)
    9:56 pm on January 17th, 2014 15

    Sorry about the mixed names. Two different PCs not sync’d yet.

  • Avatar of Leon LaPorteLeon LaPorte
    9:56 pm on January 17th, 2014 16

    Just a point of order and perspective. Diplomats were attacked and killed during previous administrations yet I do not recall the folks who seem to be so extremely concerned and vocal about Benghazi even making a peep about prior incidents. Benghazi was a major f@ck up, no doubt. Any security lapse concerning our diplomats is a big deal. Yet, the casual observer might thing the criticism related to Benghazi is motivated by other factors. :roll:

    June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
    February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Truck bomb kills 17.

    February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

    July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
    Suicide bomber kills two.

    December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
    Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

    March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

    September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
    Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

    January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
    A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

    July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
    Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

    March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
    Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls’ school instead.

    September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
    Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

    There have been two attacks since the half white president took over, Benghazi and Cairo (not counting Afghanistan as we at at war). So, where was the outcry, the rage, the calls for impeachment, the accusations, for the attacks under Bush?

  • Mike Morgan (setnaffa)
    10:10 pm on January 17th, 2014 17

    Last Ambassador killed? 1979, under Jimmy Carter. And there are other issues with your examples.

    The mortars used in Benghazi hit. They were precisely laying the rounds, as though they knew well beforehand where to put them. They are not shoot from the hip weapons.

    It wasn’t one or two guys in a drive-by or suicide attack, it took seven+ hours and the local security was in on it (most if not all did not stick around to do the job they were paid to do).

    And there was a considerable amount of ire over the 2004 attack in Saudi Arabia. From both sides of the aisle and Hollywood (although there were different points of view as to placing blame).

    As well as the attacks in Africa before 9/11/2001.

    Not to mention two+ weeks of the President and his staff lying about a stupid video.

  • Mike Morgan (setnaffa)
    10:12 pm on January 17th, 2014 18

    And the next time you try to play the race card, go stuff yourself. :roll:

  • Avatar of Leon LaPorteLeon LaPorte
    10:22 pm on January 17th, 2014 19

    18. You are of course right. No criticism or dislike of Obama has been motivated by race. Our country is far beyond that. Isn’t it grand?

  • Louis Dechert
    8:48 am on January 18th, 2014 20

    Obama would not have elected president except for his race as Ms. Clinton can bitchingly (her normal disposition) testify. Enough of that shit.

    Readers will gain by reading the following:
    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/the-question-to-haunt-the-west/
    In that editorial, by Pruden, I especially like the line “A mere spokesman at the State Department, which imagines that its true mission is to give away what blood and guts of others win, does not speak for the nation.”
    LTD

  • Louis Dechert
    12:42 pm on January 18th, 2014 21

    Correction#20: Obama would not have been. . . . .

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 31932 access attempts in the last 7 days.