- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Monday morning quarterbacking is for cowards. Especially driven by partisan political bull****.
Gates was right though. You don't send in assets effectively blind to rescue other assets. That gets everyone killed. I'd rather trust the wisdom of former secretary Gates then the arm chair fools here.
Monday morning quarterbacking is for cowards. Especially driven by partisan political bull****.
Gates was right though. You don't send in assets effectively blind to rescue other assets. That gets everyone killed. I'd rather trust the wisdom of former secretary Gates then the arm chair fools here.
Although he was an admirable SecDef, Gates had no personal military command experience. In fact, in war assets are sent in "effectively blind to rescue other assets" all the time. It's called keeping faith amid the fog of war.eace
I think this was sadly totally political....During a political campaign where Romney wiped the floor with Obama in the first debate, was headed for debate #2, and reports that Obama's heart just wasn't in it were out there...Had they told the truth about what happened that night, and that the callous disregard for American's lives over hiding the truth about what they were doing in Benghazi would directly point to a foreign policy failure, directly on the heels of Romney effectively showing the domestic failure in debate #1.
They are now getting caught in their lies, but at this point, and in the words of Hillary...."What at this point does it matter?" Obama wins, he's in, and we have a speaker that all but avoided the select committee until he is now forced to do it....That all but ensures that instead of having real impact, it will be mocked, scoffed, and dismissed by the demo's that we need to hold this administration accountable....
All I can see coming out of this administration is that demo's have been fully exposed as the liars, duplicitous, callous criminals they are....If America keeps voting for them they then deserve what they get.
Like what you're doing, now. Yes?
If The President was anyone but a black, Liberal Democrat, you would be calling for his head. But, since it's Obama, it's suddenly a mortal sin to question his performance.
I don't think I'd paint quite so bleak a picture but I understand your sentiment. I'm certain the men who fought on through the night expected that help was on the way.eace
In sports, we are told it's not always whether you win or lose - it's how you played the game. The men who fought on bravely lost their lives, it's true, but like the Battle of Thermopylae, where 300 stood against thousands, history records that although they lost that battle, what they actually gained was far more important, since their bravery showed that destiny can be altered, if the goal is worthy enough.
Good morning, Jack. :2wave:
Better to die a good death than a bad one, certainly, but I suspect they would rather have lived.eace
Good morning, Polgara.:2wave:
Typical right-winger, injecting race into everything.
I trust the knowledge of the military personnel in charge of the situation, who had the information they had and made decisions based on it. Not hindsight, not wishful thinking. And certainly not fairy tales that Fox News promoted like the idea that an armed drone was on-station just waiting for authorization to engage.
True that, but I believe that the current mantra arguing that since it was two years ago, those deaths are not an important issue, even though people have been asking for answers constantly during those same two years - and considering the fact that the thugs have not yet been brought to justice - that this may have a bearing on how any future events like this are handled. Time will tell....
Although he was an admirable SecDef, Gates had no personal military command experience. In fact, in war assets are sent in "effectively blind to rescue other assets" all the time. It's called keeping faith amid the fog of war.eace
Only because you agree with him.
However, this time, General Gates is wrong.
In the words of General Zinni:
"...in order to do our mission, we have to take risks. The only only one hundred percent safe way to avoid them is to no go there. But if we're going to be in a region, and we're going to do our job, there is risk involved. We're going to expose the troops.
The mood back in the United States has been deeply frustrating, and that is: We have to make our force presence in the world one-hundred percent safe for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. And if one soldier, sailor, air-man, or Marine is injured, or lost to terrorist activity, then we have to find somebody on our side to blame for it.
I can't think of a more dysfunctional way to run military operations"
Battle Ready - Tom Clancy, Tony Zinni, Tony Koltz - Google Books
Not really. Generally the reinforcing unit has some notion of what's happening, a vague estimate of enemy composition and some details. We did not have that in Benghazi. And I'd trust Gates over you any day of the week.
You are free to trust whom you will. As I said, I think Gates did a fine job as SecDef, but it's simply a fact that most relief missions are undertaken with incomplete intelligence. If things were going well then a relief mission would not be needed.eace
There is a difference between incomplete and wholly lacking intelligence. Something neither you nor Adpst seem to understand. No mission has a 100% confirmed intel, but most missions have more than a location you're going to.
We had people on the ground with commo gear. We had enough. The problems were time & distance, not intel. And don't presume to know our relative understanding of these issues.eace
what any mission needs is a defined objective. and intel is something that any mission needs in order to understand an objective.
Yes, and . . .?
We had people on the ground with commo gear. We had enough. The problems were time & distance, not intel. And don't presume to know our relative understanding of these issues.eace
you cannot formulate a mission with a specific objective without having the intel needed to define the objective.
Well, let's leave aside the facts that a known number of Americans were under attack at a known location. Then if you want to make the case that the situation was too unknown or risky to act then feel free. Regardless, please remember that the General never claimed that a rescue would have been successful or even could have been launched. His regret was than an order to initiate planning for such was never issued or received.eace
Secretary Gates would disagree with you. And based on your wildly partisan hackish posting history, I see no reason to take your word. And we all know that you would be first to criticize the administration if the rescue operation went bad saying that the administration risked lives based on nearly absent intelligence information. Hell, you'd even criticize them for sending in reinforcements blind.
there were other americans that required evacuation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?