Quote:
Originally Posted by montana1958
Now back to the political discussion. I noticed you didn't mention anything about the new info about the failed belief that relationships were normalized in the region and no additional security was required. And now e-mails were leaked about just what was known hours after the attack started. Doove, Jack and any other liberals out there have any concerns over these new facts? And don't give me this we need to finish the investigation BS. They know every single fact that there is by now. It happened 6 weeks ago. It's either a cover up or incompetence. Either way, it should concern every American out there no matter what your political affiliation is.
|
Montana, after reading your posts on the subject, I read up a bit on the incident and what is known now. I really don't see any smoking gun or policy level malfeasance.
While it is true that I lean left of center and generally vote democrat, my perspective on this is colored primarily by nearly 30 years of military service, which included small unit tactics, offensive/defensive operations, force protection, and threat assessments. A few years ago, I had oversight of the force protection of a US commanded FOB in Afghanistan. We put together a pretty good plan, but the reality was that a well coordinated attack with the right amount of combat power was going to hurt us, even if we successfully defended the base. Throw in the randomness of indirect fire attacks like mortar or rocket fire where enemies can be miles away and lob explosives into a compound, where the only real "defense" is to seek cover and hope against a direct hit, and there is just no way to protect against every eventuality. Another thing to consider is that sustaining high levels of force protection posture negatively impact the overall effectiveness of your defense, because it can be draining and make defenders careless.
There is no one school solution for force protection....more is not always better in achieving tactical or strategic goals. Even here in the states, you could make the case that every police officer would be safer if he/she wore a full tactical rig whenever they went into public. Can you imagine that being a big hit with the public, much less the cops?
Levels of force protection are always being increased or decreased because of factors for which the threat level is only one consideration. When I was in Iraq, it was pretty common to use machine gun fire as warning shots to ward off civilian vehicles that got too close, in some cases, shooting out the engine blocks of some vehicles. Similar things were done in Afghanistan. Toward the end of my Afghanistan deployment, we received guidance from Gen McChyrstal that directed US forces to adopt a far less aggressive convoy force protection stance as part of the strategy to win popular support from the average Afghan against Taliban insurgent efforts. It certainly chapped many soldiers' asses because it increased our risk of getting blown up by a vehicle borne IED. Accepting increased risk in this arena was balanced out by the degree to which minimizing the degree of general antagonism the Afghan people had for coalition forces. It totally sucks if your ass gets killed supporting the strategic objectives of your commanders, but it's part of the game.
The truth is, that there isn't a US embassy in the world that couldn't be breached with the right mix of combat power and tactics, regardless of the level of force protection. Don't get me wrong, the more force protection you have, the more resources it could take to breach, and the more resources you need to be able to inflict damage.
In this particular instance, a well coordinated attack successfully breached the embassy and killed two people (one of which was a particularly High Value Target). Hours later after reinforcements had arrived, two more Americans were killed by indirect mortar fire (the two ex-Navy SEALs working as security contractors for the CIA). Remember that the mortar fire like came from far enough away that the attackers were probably not in sight of the embassy or in any way accessible with the weaponry available to the defenders. The level of force protection simply wasn't a factor.
After an attack occurs, it's all too easy to recognize all the intelligence that was available that someone should have caught. The thing to remember is that events like those tend to happen frequently...like active surveillance of an embassy. Taking non-violent actions that force your opponent to expend resources (like escalating force protection) can be an effective tactic itself...
As tempting as it is to second guess the folks on the ground after something unfortunate happens, the fact that the enemy (who ALWAYS has a vote in these matters through their own tactical planning) is able to inflict damage doesn't mean the force protection plan was inappropriate for the situation as it presents itself.
I don't have all the facts, and I doubt anyone on this board does either, but on the face of what's been made available so far, I don't see any bad actors.
I'm getting punchy as I write this...so you can take this with a grain of salt, but there's nothing about this attack that particularly invalidates our foreign policy or should serve particularly as criticism for the President.
