View Full Version : So NOW we reposition troops...
...for a possible "quick reaction"... to Libya? Super:shakehead
The U.S. military has alerted two elite military units in Europe to be on standby if needed to respond to a deteriorating security situation in Tripoli.
A specialized Marine unit based in Moron, Spain, is in the process of being repositioned closer to Libya; and in Stuttgart, Germany, a special operations force assigned to AFRICOM has been placed on heightened alert.
Neither team has moved yet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/us-military-units-put-on-alert-as-security-situation-deteriorates-in-libyan/
Get ready to get ready.
Don Quixote
05-10-13, 03:18 PM
Since when do we publicize troop movements before they happen?
I think it was putting them on alert, but (w/o getting political) who knows with the inmates running the asylum. :shakehead :saywhat:
-Kevin
Not surprising, really. The Euros decided to create regime change (for humanitarian reasons, of course) but don't have the means or will to stick around and clean up the mess.
Announce troop movements? Only seems fair...we announce when we are WITHDRAWING troops!
cameraman
05-10-13, 08:51 PM
It's a message that will get through.
Andrew Longman
05-10-13, 09:27 PM
So in my search for any other source on this besides Fox I came up with nothing.
Except this from the BBC in 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12603320
Repositioning apparently happens all the time. Jus' sayin'. ;)
So in my search for any other source on this besides Fox I came up with nothing.
Except this from the BBC in 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12603320
Repositioning apparently happens all the time. Jus' sayin'. ;)
I've seen it reported elsewhere, and dug up this piece from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/libya-protests-prompt-us-to-evacuate-diplomats-put-troops-on-alert/2013/05/10/3f02134a-2ab2-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
As I mentioned, it's more about putting them on alert just in case. AT least the Administration and DoS appears to have learned their lesson.
-Kevin
Insomniac
05-11-13, 04:18 PM
As I mentioned, it's more about putting them on alert just in case. AT least the Administration and DoS appears to have learned their lesson.
I like to think that they always learn their lesson, but it continues to (and will continue to) happen regardless.
You can draw your own conclusions about why this one is a much bigger deal than previous ones that resulted in American deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions
datachicane
05-12-13, 12:48 AM
You can draw your own conclusions about why this one is a much bigger deal than previous ones that resulted in American deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions
Pretty clearly tactics masquerading as heartfelt conviction.
There you go, harshing some poor slob's righteous outrage.
You can draw your own conclusions about why this one is a much bigger deal than previous ones that resulted in American deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions
What previous ones are you talking about? The last time Americans were killed in a U.S. Embassy attack was 1998. That was a very big deal - cruise missiles into tents big. The last time an American Ambassador was killed was '79.
Andrew Longman
05-12-13, 05:54 AM
The last time Americans were killed in a U.S. Embassy attack was 1998. That was a very big deal - cruise missiles into tents bigThose attacks killed 233 and wounded 4085 (not to minimize in the least the deaths in Lybia). And those cruise missiles went after the actual people that actual intelligence said did it : bin Laden, al Zawahari, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and 18 others. And it didn't work. Better actual intelligence later did.
Jus' sayin' there is always a lot to learn... Except usually at a Congressional hearing. ;)
datachicane
05-12-13, 12:48 PM
What previous ones are you talking about? The last time Americans were killed in a U.S. Embassy attack was 1998.
Not quite true.
David Foy
Susan Elbaneh
...not to mention a number of non-American support staffers. Thankfully, casualties only count when we decide they do (including pre-1998), so we have plenty of maneuvering room.
Nearest I can tell the current outrage seems to be focused on the idea that an administration would spin its official statements on current events, something which is clearly unprecedented. Apparently.
Nearest I can tell the current outrage seems to be focused on the idea that an administration would spin its official statements on current events, something which is clearly unprecedented. Apparently.
Yes, the spin is a major point, but there is also the contention that additional support was requested and either denied or ignored. The other major point is the withholding of information by the DoS/Administration. This is bigger that parsing the word 'the'. Susan Rice's head should roll. Period.
-Kevin
Spin? Try changing the facts. :yuck:
Disagree about Susan Rice's head though. She was just following orders like a good soldier.
datachicane
05-12-13, 03:01 PM
Ummm, OK, what pertinent facts were changed?
Blaming the youtube video when it is clear that was a lie. It was an AQ attack and it was known from the start.
Blaming the youtube video when it is clear that was a lie. It was an AQ attack and it was known from the start.
And gee, it coincidentally occurred on 9/11. Even the average moron like me can connect those dots. :saywhat:
-Kevin
Monica Lewinsky, 2013. Yawn.
datachicane
05-13-13, 01:20 AM
Blaming the youtube video when it is clear that was a lie. It was an AQ attack and it was known from the start.
That's pretty much all I've heard.
This pertinent in shaping an appropriate response, well, how exactly?
Monica Lewinsky, 2013. Yawn.
I don't really care about the politics. I just want to know if the guys fighting on the roof of the CIA annex were given all possible support. My current impression is that they were left on their own, like in Rambo II or Clear and Present Danger. I hope I am mistaken.
Insomniac
05-13-13, 08:21 AM
What previous ones are you talking about? The last time Americans were killed in a U.S. Embassy attack was 1998. That was a very big deal - cruise missiles into tents big. The last time an American Ambassador was killed was '79.
That's my mistake for specifying American deaths. In every attack their lives are at risk. Our embassies are big targets abroad. This isn't news, but it continues to happen. I doubt Bengazi was the first to request more security.
On a side note, I don't know how to word this, but does anyone else feel like once all the troops are gone, Islamic terrorists will lose the "local" ability to attack the U.S. and that increases the likelihood of an attack here?
On a side note, I don't know how to word this, but does anyone else feel like once all the troops are gone, Islamic terrorists will lose the "local" ability to attack the U.S. and that increases the likelihood of an attack here?
They have to finish killing themselves first. :\
-Kevin
Andrew Longman
05-13-13, 09:48 AM
Spin? Try changing the facts. :yuck:
Disagree about Susan Rice's head though. She was just following orders like a good soldier.
It was also a fact that the Benghazi embassy was also (as most embassies are) a CIA post and that there was intelligence about who actually attacked from sources the CIA wanted to protect.
Competent spies don't give away what they know and how they know it, at least not right away or it becomes too easy for the bad guys to know our capabilities. That's pretty basic spycraft.
Rice wasn't just being a good soldier, she was being a competent diplomat.
The independent study pointed out many flaws at DoS and those have been or are being addressed. Make no mistake this is about Republican trying to poison Hillary as a 2016 candidate, but it makes no difference. Newt himself correctly said IMO, that unless the GOP straightens itself out and finds a new leadership compass, they have no one who can beat her. This issue didn't help defeat Obama in 2012 and it won't help them win in 2016.
Back to your regularly scheduled non partisan, non political forum :gomer:
Oh, C'mon...don't you know? The ONLY change made by the White House in their so-called "talking points" was redefining the place where Americans were spontaneously demonstrated to death from a "consulate" to a "diplomatic facility." (makes the whole thing less serious, I guess?) Your government wouldn't LIE to you about this... repeatedly, over and over, again and again, month after month,:rolleyes:in an attempt to COVER UP how it may have actually, get ready...made a mistake?! "What difference does it make now?" and "It was a long time ago!" We've been TOLD! Let it go! You are just being political! Yeah, right. There is good politics and there is bad politics...and I'm not talking about party politics, I'm talking about NATIONAL politics. Nothing wrong with being critical of bad politics. Can some of us not STAND the truth? You aren't wrong, Gnam and that really bothers me. Think about bad politics and Seal Team 6, too. Turns my stomach to think about it. Think the IRS was involved in bad politics recently? Just low level employees involved here. Won't happen again. Nothing to see, move along! Maybe.:shakehead
datachicane
05-13-13, 11:02 AM
Do you really think that the accuracy with which initial reports parsed potential motives for the bad guys who shot up our embassy is a critical piece of information here? Is the fact that there are multiple motives, most of which are not mutually exclusive, driving folks like that somehow newsworthy?
How would anything in the administration's statements change anything at all with regards to actual actions on the ground? I'm amazed by how much energy is spent counting the number of times a representative does or does not use the word 'terror', as if that has some actual bearing to the lethality of the attack or the necessary response.
This has pretty much become standard political talking points. I'm inclined to close it unless someone has something interesting or insightful to say.
Other than saying... I think that independent review board referenced by Andrew was hardly independent and was limited to and "is addressing" only the issues pertaining to security at the diplomatic facility. Pickering has said exactly that and won't/can't even comment on questions about the event and current fallout. The "higher ups in the building" At State were not happy with the talking points after the attack and the review board didn't even talk to the head at State. The rest is just a sideshow according to the HIGHEST up...but I'd like to see that show REALLY reviewed.
It was also a fact that the Benghazi embassy was also (as most embassies are) a CIA post and that there was intelligence about who actually attacked from sources the CIA wanted to protect.
Competent spies don't give away what they know and how they know it, at least not right away or it becomes too easy for the bad guys to know our capabilities. That's pretty basic spycraft.
Yes, except the CIA wasn't holding the information close to the vest. They put it in a memo and sent it out to a bunch of politicians to use as 'talking points' in interviews with the media. But again I don't care who said what. All I want to know is what happened on that roof.
The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.
With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration.
The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.
With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration.
[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/
And data...this is about WAY more than "actual actions on the ground" it is about the (I think) BAD politics that are continuing to follow. It isn't even about the lethality of the attack, there IS nothing that can be done about that now...but it IS about the relationship of the American people to their leadership. SHOULD we just move on or should we hold our leadership accountable? This MIGHT be about trashing the head at the State Department to dash hopes of a political future but it might also be about officials who really screwed up and deserve to be held accountable. I would like to know.
And Gnam, you KNOW what happened on that roof and it IS what you didn't want to hear. They were armed alright but the reason they were there was to "paint" targets for the Calvery when they were sent. ( of COURSE I don't KNOW this but I have read it in several accounts) But they were told to stand down, weren't they? Wouldn't you like to know who sent that order? Wouldn't you like to know who TOLD that person to send that order? You are darn right that might determine how I vote in the future!
datachicane
05-13-13, 12:40 PM
Not trying to pick a fight, and I have nothing but respect for my fellow OC'ers, but what, specifically, is the complaint? Every similar scenario, regardless of administration, is chaotic, every similar scenario, regardless of administration, results in official statements that change, and every similar scenario, regardless of administration, results in a certain degree of spin.
The hearings thus far have been instructive, and seem to have torpedoed most of the more dire hypotheses. I continue to hear plenty of angst over who called who what or who ascribed what motive to whom, none of which would seem to have any objective importance whatsoever. A video? Resentment over U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia? The Balfour accords? Is understanding the precise mix of motivations driving the guy shooting at you really a necessary prerequisite to fighting back?
datachicane
05-13-13, 12:41 PM
But they were told to stand down, weren't they? Wouldn't you like to know who sent that order? Wouldn't you like to know who TOLD that person to send that order? You are darn right that might determine how I vote in the future!
That particular scenario was explicitly debunked during the hearing.
Andrew Longman
05-13-13, 01:44 PM
Yes, except the CIA wasn't holding the information close to the vest.Except they did. And this has been known since November http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/21/world/la-fg-cia-benghazi-20121121
Rather than get into an inappropriate political discussion here , here is an alternate view of the talking points to ponder which is IMO the simplest, most reasonable and most likely explanation http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-alternative-explanation-for-the-benghazi-talking-points-bureaucratic-knife-fight/2013/05/10/22a8df5c-b98d-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html
As for what happened on the roof, two things... The exchange of fire in question lasted only 11 minutes -- not enough time for help to get there and 2) the AC130s people say should have been there were stationed in Florida and New Mexico. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-laser-claim-official-calls-it-tom-clancy-level-fiction/2012/11/02/982f6528-24fc-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html
There is more if you look for it, but I don't want to flirt with fprum rules so I'm done.
Debunked or not, four guys are goners while trying to hold the fort until help arrived but the help was ordered NOT to. Maybe for good reason. Maybe it was one of those unrecoverable situations but that review board had no more authority than to say, "Yup, security was not adequate." Ya THINK!? It's what has happened SINCE, starting on 9/12 that is in question here. Bad politics and lies go together and I don't like either one. It is my opinion we are seeing both.
For what it is worth, my original reason for the topic title was meant to mock what looked like "closing the barn door a little late" with reference to news we were NOW repositioning troops to deal with possible problems. Sort of a govt. CYO moment, I think. I'm well aware of all the repositioning that regularly occurs...probably saved my young a**...WAY back. Out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.