Another piece of the not-puzzle.
The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting
or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by
my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment
to Beirut.
Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in
Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in
real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany.
Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning
and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and
aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is
one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president:
cross an international border on a hostile mission.
So any rescue requires an order from the CinC.
...No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in
hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into
hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give
the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that
nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama
granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.
On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.
It's hard to believe that Obama could get worse than he already was.
But he did, while preparing for a campaign stop in Las Vegas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Better catch up, Dad.
Looks like ABC News, The Washington Post, The Mercury News, The Miami Herald, NBC and others are now reporting the story based on actual sources.
Seems like they took the time to get the story from people who know instead of people who guessed.
My post has NOTHING to do with CIA.
Better learn how to read for meaning, Jim
Thank you for your service Dad. I'm interested in a particular point you made in your piece.
— DOZENS of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations,
So a great many people watched or listened in on the attacks. Presumably they could follow the battle in some manner. The terrorists were shooting at somebody for 7 hours. A lot of phone calls can be placed during that time. Does anybody know how many response teams participated in the battle?
I ask because at least one of the SEALS killed was employed as either an agent or subcontractor employed by the CIA. The other was not. Was he attached to a Marine FAST unit? Were other units involved in escorting the 30 embassy survivors to safety?
My point is that the actual facts of this convulsive event were known by many. That knowledge will spread. It always does. Further, if other units were indeed involved, at the very least that would contradict the official timeline being released.
First it was a drone, then two. Then an AC-130 gunship, now there are indications that the CIA may not have been the only responders.
It just sounds like that it would take more than a non issuance of a cross border authorization to keep things in check.
Post a Comment