BENGHAZI!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 07:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 07:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I googled it earlier (the thing about the ambassador turning away extra security) and all I found were 3 year old stories that preceded the release of the documents showing he had requested extra security. Not sure the entire story with that, perhaps he turned down extra security before he thought there was a risk but changed his mind later?

Maybe so. Gonna look more for the story.

(23-10-2015 07:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  He specifically requested 13 extra security personnel. 13 extra marines would have been at least something. 13 marines could seriously fuck some shit up, or at least deter it.

You are right. 13 Marines could've easily secured the compound against a mob. There'd be a lot of collateral damage. Makes me wonder what is the typical level of security for a US Embassy?

There's a lot more to embassy security than the number of armed personnel, and that was the biggest weakness with Benghazi. The only fortifications it had were a few sandbags stacked outside which probably served more to advertise its vulnerability than to protect it. No fortified walls, no perimeter, no anti personnel mines ( most embassies utilize non lethal mines), and the oh shit room, which is where key personnel would go while awaiting the arrival of a quick reaction force in the event of an emergency, and which would normally be the most heavily fortified and defensible room in the structure, was basically just a bathroom.

All they really had to do to take the place was get it set in fire. The security was absolutely ridiculous.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
23-10-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 07:39 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 09:48 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Easy to believe that bullshit when you've only seen one experienced one side of the story.

Experienced it? What about the civilians they gunned down. In case you forgot:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/blackwa...entencing/

Quote:Ex-Blackwater contractors sentenced in Nusoor Square shooting in Iraq

That was the incident I talked about in my precious post, and it was not as black and white as CNN and other biased media made it out to be.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 08:00 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 07:46 PM)yakherder Wrote:  All they really had to do to take the place was get it set in fire. The security was absolutely ridiculous.

The fucking panic room did not account for smoke inhalation from the outside? The fuck? I mean I can understand not worrying about it in the US Embassy in Canada, but not in 3rd world shitholes.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 07:58 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 07:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 07:46 PM)yakherder Wrote:  There's a lot more to embassy security than the number of armed personnel, and that was the biggest weakness with Benghazi. The only fortifications it had were a few sandbags stacked outside which probably served more to advertise its vulnerability than to protect it. No fortified walls, no perimeter, no anti personnel mines ( most embassies utilize non lethal mines), and the oh shit room, which is where key personnel would go while awaiting the arrival of a quick reaction force in the event of an emergency, and which would normally be the most heavily fortified and defensible room in the structure, was basically just a bathroom.

All they really had to do to take the place was get it set in fire. The security was absolutely ridiculous.

The fucking panic room did not account for smoke inhalation from the outside? The fuck?

Well that's the thing, it was just some place they rented. It was never designed to be defensible. The panic room was just the one they decided was the best choice out of limited options, not a room actually intended as a holdout.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
23-10-2015, 08:07 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(22-10-2015 09:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 09:11 PM)yakherder Wrote:  After the way they (Hillary and friends) crucified Blackwater for political purposes,

Blackwater went off reservation and went rogue. They screwed us taxpayers out of millions if not billions of dollars. I fucking saw it.

Not to mention that they dragged the flag through the mud. After the shootout where something like 19 civilians got killed, who would trust an American?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 08:10 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(22-10-2015 09:31 PM)yakherder Wrote:  That is, if they could find someone else who could get their diplomats from point A to point B intact. Which they couldn't.

What does that say about sworn servicemembers? And do you agree with that?

How was it that our combat personnel couldn't, you know, prepare for combat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 08:23 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 07:58 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Well that's the thing, it was just some place they rented. It was never designed to be defensible. The panic room was just the one they decided was the best choice out of limited options, not a room actually intended as a holdout.

Aye, there's the rub. Which countries do we rent and which do we buy?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-10-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 08:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 09:31 PM)yakherder Wrote:  That is, if they could find someone else who could get their diplomats from point A to point B intact. Which they couldn't.

What does that say about sworn servicemembers? And do you agree with that?

How was it that our combat personnel couldn't, you know, prepare for combat?

They were able to make plans with a lot more efficiency than a conventional chain of command. That and every single one of them were also former service members themselves, most combat experienced members of various special operations groups.

I won't deny for a second that we're ill prepared for many of the challenges in the world. I do more practical training on my own than I do with my unit. Of course I respect my fellow servicemembers, but quality is inconsistent. Erik Prince, as a former SEAL himself, and because of the way he built his company, had a ridiculous amount of talent at his disposal. Every single Blackwater contractor I met absolutely knew what he was doing. I can't say the same for the rest of the military. What we've got are the numbers.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 06:53 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 10:35 PM)morondog Wrote:  There was a trial and convictions from what I can find googling - doesn't sound like bullshit to me.

A Blackwater convoy was ordered to block an intersection in preparation for the arrival of different convoy containing someone whose protection they were responsible for. They anticipated a possible ambush at that intersection, and wanted it secured. Once there, a vehicle, for reasons unknown, did not stop as directed and instead continued towards the convoy. As directed by their rules of engagement, they fired into the engine block and then, when that didn't work, they targeted the driver. If the situation had stopped there, it probably would have been deemed justified even when it later became apparent that the car wasn't a VBIED, the driver was just an idiot. The problem was that while Iraqi police officers began running to the aid of the vehicle's occupants while unknown shooters of unknown allegiance, most likely those who intended to set up the originally predicted ambush, began firing on the convoy, adding confusion to an already fucked up situation. Mistaking the police officer as a combatant trying to get to what at the time was still a suspected VBIED (not an unreasonable assumption given the known high level of corruption and the fact that they had about two seconds to make their decision as they started to receive legitimate enemy fire from other, unknown sources), they kept firing. The rest was more or less a chain reaction of confusion and each side not knowing the intentions of the other. The convoy was convinced it had come under full scale ambush, and the Iraqi police and civilians were convinced the convoy had suddenly gone rogue and started massacring people.

Yes, there was a trial and convictions. Whether I agree with the outcome or not, I accept it. It was, however, for failing to follow the defined rules of engagement in a specific tragic scenario, not for "murdering civilians whenever the fuck they felt like it." That's a bullshit accusation to make, albeit a common one, and I'm going to call it out as bullshit whenever I hear it, because I can't honestly say I wouldn't have done the same thing in their situation without the benefit of hindsight bias after the fact.

Sorry, but something like seventeen civilians got killed there. Whether by a private company or a military force, the fact is that that SNAFU strewed shit all over our policy in Iraq, as it undermined trust in American operations.

I'm sure those guys had their own reasons for firing which would look justifiable, but the facts are that they made a serious misjudgement which had deleterious effects on American foreign policy, whose goals they were contracted to obtain.

You can paint the numbers as you wish, but that operation looks shit-brown from this vantage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
23-10-2015, 09:05 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 08:19 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 08:10 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  What does that say about sworn servicemembers? And do you agree with that?

How was it that our combat personnel couldn't, you know, prepare for combat?

They were able to make plans with a lot more efficiency than a conventional chain of command. That and every single one of them were also former service members themselves, most combat experienced members of various special operations groups.

I won't deny for a second that we're ill prepared for many of the challenges in the world. I do more practical training on my own than I do with my unit. Of course I respect my fellow servicemembers, but quality is inconsistent. Erik Prince, as a former SEAL himself, and because of the way he built his company, had a ridiculous amount of talent at his disposal. Every single Blackwater contractor I met absolutely knew what he was doing. I can't say the same for the rest of the military. What we've got are the numbers.

But in any operation, whether carried out by sworn service-members or hired lackeys, plans must take into account the possibility of civilian dead. The sheer numbers, 17 dead civilians, reflect that either A) no one cared on-scene that civilians might die, to the detriment of US foreign policy (which certainly happened!), B) they weren't trained very well in identifying hostile situations, or C) they panicked.

The leaders in that imbroglio clearly misidentified the situation, and while I understand your respect for guys alongside whom you served, that doesn't exculpate them from shitty judgement calls.

They screwed the pooch. They killed 17 people they shouldn't have killed, and in so doing, they damaged our foreign policy. I get that you feel a kinship with them, but that doesn't in any way excuse the failure of judgement.

The tools of foreign policy ought to be controlled by written law, for this reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: