Small Wars Journal

60 Minutes Segment on the Benghazi Attack

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 4:45pm

CBS 60 Minutes on Benghazi: Benghazi was a planned, sophisticated attack by al Qaeda against a barely protected American outpost. Lara Logan reports.

Comments

Bill M.

Fri, 11/08/2013 - 4:49pm

In reply to by SWJED

Lara is demonstrating more character than see coming out of the White House. I respect her as a person and a reporter, and believe she is truly embarrassed by this mistake, but the rest of the 60 Minutes crew have a long history of spinning their reporting to push an agenda. On the other hand, their reports are usually interesting, but viewers need to seek out the rest of the story through different venues to ensure they're informed, and I doubt most have the time to do so.

davidbfpo

Fri, 11/08/2013 - 11:08am

From Twitter: CBS retracts 60 Minutes report on #Benghazi report. Lara Logan: "We made a mistake." Whoops.

I have not looked for confirmation.

I'm not going to quibble about the lift assets available, suffice it to say that the lift was not in position to move any particular force quickly even if the CIF was in Germany. I must wholeheartedly agree that DoD should have had assets more relatively available.

The Intel community (AFRICOM and the Components) were tracking the other events in North Africa (Egypt) which belongs to CENTCOM and elsewhere leading up to Benghazi attacks. There were no blind eyes turned, It was the 911 anniversary after all. The confusion seemed to be coming out of the "beltway" with respect to the skewed Intel reads. (Please don't take me down that rat hole)

The statement about Ham is true, he did ask the COM/AMB if he needed help prior to the attacks. The AMB declined! So is DoD suppose to arbitrarily launch into Libya? That's not how it works, DoD runs what in a Sovereign Nation? Nothing... State Does and for the military to launch requires POTUS and at best SECDEF approval. So once again before you throw DoD under the bus realize they do not run squat in XY or Z countries. Your point about propositioning forces from SIG is well taken, it's a good spot, but it's not the only spot. Forces that were actually available we're being postured and were waiting for the call.

Rod, nothing could be truer than your last sentence. "Either the military is incompetent or they were told not to act." Better addressed as the military was not authorized by the executive branch of our government to act! At the end of the day DoD cannot act independently or without approval!
TD

major.rod

Wed, 10/30/2013 - 2:15am

In reply to by TD

The CIF had lift.

One thing that everyone seems to forget was this was a 911 anniversary. Simple straightforward military planning should have had assets relatively available.

The next ignored point is the the US Embassy in Cairo was attacked earlier. Egypt had pulled back its security. The Embassy grounds had been compromised a US flag was torn down and replaced with an AQ flag as well as AQ graffiti left in the area. Those are HUGE hints to the military to put assets in motion. This isn't rocket science.

Finally the Ambassador was missing FOR HOURS. Ambassadors are the equivalent of a four star. It defies any king of logic for the military to not decisively deploy elements so they could react. In nothing else forces should have been staging at Sigonella.

Gen Ham (AFRICOM) was aware of all the incidents and had even asked the Ambassador if he wanted assets (before the attack). The Ambassador declined because he was being a good State Dep't soldier and trying to work it the right way thorugh the system vs. doing an end run (and potentially angering his bosses). Many more than just State were aware of the Libya situation. Anyone can read a calendar. Events elsewhere should have put elements in a forward leaning posture if not started movement and the lack of info on the Ambassador should have had people in the air.

None of these things happened. Either the military is incompetent or they were told not to act.

I would be careful in believing everything in the 60 min report. I generally agree with what Carl is saying about today's risk adverse and politically motivated GO's in general. However, I am incline to say that "people" were trying to get something headed that way. If you know anything about Africa you know the ternary of distance. Realize the only "Basing" in Africa is HOA which is further away than Italy or Germany. If you know anything about the various commands that handle Africa you know the collective "They" have no organic forces. Sure MARFORAF has the Special Purpose MAGTF to give up to AFRICOM and GEN Ham had a CIF. USARAF had zero to offer and NAVAF had some aircraft but nothing in the form of force projection parked close enough either. SOCAF was limited and were conducting operations elsewhere in Africa. Unfortunately, the two elements that had something to throw at it, were training elsewhere or had no lift to project a force. Neither were in any feasible position to pick up and go quickly into Tripoli/Benghazi even if authorization was granted to do so, which by the way did not happen on the executive side of the house. I don't recall how much lift if any AFAF had on the ground at Ramstein, not that it mattered because the force to be employed was in another country in Europe. There is plenty of blame to go around and more light will shine thru the veil in the coming weeks. The GO's that I worked for in this case we're trying to make the impossible (within a few hours) happen. In the end we lot some great Americans and that's a tragedy! I do not believe DoD is the organization that should be blamed. Due Diligence on the part of State concerning force protection and intelligence should have been applied prior to the crises and makes the case for the conduct of SOF OPE and "getting left of the crises."

Just one guys paradigm.
TD

major.rod

Mon, 10/28/2013 - 11:58pm

In reply to by carl

Well said.

And some wonder where "toxic leadership" comes from...

We learn in this report that we knew they were going to be coming, we knew who they were and we were pretty sure what they were going to do-kill. We also learned in this report that one hour into an attack that lasted for hours that the people on the scene were told the US military wasn't coming. From that I deduce that they weren't even going to try. I further figure that there had to be more than a few multi-starred general officers in most branches of the US military who knew of this and acquiesced. I know that not one of these multi-stars has said a word about this since and none seem inclined to. Not a peep.

So I got a question for these guys with all those stars.

You left the men hanging on the wire. You knew and you didn't even try to help them. From your subsequent behavior it seems you are all content to let that be, to stand as it is without protest. So my question to you guys is this: Is the big staff, the perqs, the six figure pensions, the seat on the corporate boards after retirement, the jets and all that stuff, is is worth it? I mean, is it really worth it?