vincentpa wrote:Response is not the issue. I doubt any response could've been effective. The military isn't going to send in troops without knowing the situation on the ground only to have them wiped out because the military didn't know the size if the enemy and their positions. Our military is great but this isn't a Hollywood movie. The scandal is the cover up. The secondary scandal is the failure to recognize the threat, which goes straight to liberal foolishness.
While I agree that that was the mindset in the White House, I don't agree it is a fact. Men did EXACTLY what you suggest because that is what our military does. What do you think the people at the CIA annex did? They went on rescue missions into the fighting. You are paralyzed if you have to wait to rescue your fellow Americans that are under active attack until you know the size of the enemy force and their position. Can you ever save anyone in time?
I'm sure you have heard of these studies.http://boingboing.net/2010/04/27/who-can-build-the-ta.html
Wujec says that very young kids usually build taller and more interesting structures than most adults, because they build a lot of prototypes in the 18 minutes each group is allotted, while adults spend a lot of time planning, then have no time to correct their mistakes.
When time is a constraint, you cannot plan and plan and plan and build the most elegant and optimum solution. When fellow Americans are under attack, it is extremely time sensitive, sure caution is in order, but the simple fact is that sometimes you are going to fail, but if you never act, you will fail 100% of the time. Whether it is firemen, police officers, or the military, when speed is of the essence, sometimes they are going to run straight into disaster. It is an unavoidable risk of the job that they don't always have time to do a detailed assessment of the situation, create a plan, have it reviewed and approved, get the right skills and right gear, and proceed with caution. People are dying right now, how many is unknown, but there is no time to wait. Either try to save them or hope too many do not die. There are nothing but bad choices, but choosing to fail by inaction should not be the default position.
Action should be the first reaction, and you are correct, this is not the movies, often, but not always, that will be the wrong decision in hindsight. However, it sends a clear message, if you attack us, you better be prepared for hell's fury to come down upon you because that is the default reaction and not make it quick and get out and we will never hunt you down and kill you.
1. No black hawk down no matter how many die in Bengazi - this totally paralyzed them to any response and just watching
2. No political fallout before the election for the President - this is why the false narrative about the video and protests and why we still have no clue what the President was doing during this attack that came in two waves over a long period of time.
BTW, this is basically Obama Iraq and Afghanistan policy. It doesn't matter how many die, he wants out, but he has to minimize the political fall out. His only strategic objective seems political. If failure was an acceptable option, meaning the U.S. has no major concern if the country fails after we leave, why did Obama not order the troops home ASAP and save all those lives?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.