US Ambassador killed in Libya
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.
That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. 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 President of the United States "(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. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.
How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.
Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them . but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.
Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.
Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.
But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.
The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understandingBenghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.
We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.
When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.
Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.
General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?
General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.
We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.
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.
That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. 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 President of the United States "(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. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.
How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.
Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them . but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.
Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.
Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.
But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.
The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understandingBenghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.
We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.
When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.
Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.
General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?
General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.
We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.
Now Hillary Clinton conveniently takes a tumble....claims a Concussion and thus just cannot possibly testify before Congress about Benghazi.
The State Department Report absolutely blasts the State Department of which she is the Secretary and thus responsible for its operations....but no mention is made about that small fact. No one gets fired.....some resign....to take new jobs elsewhere in the government probably.
Obama nominates John (Who served in Vietnam you may recall) Kerry to replace Clinton.
You may recall Kerry falesly accused US Soldiers and Marines of War Crimes back during the Vietnam years when he was giving assistance to the North Vietnamese who were still fighting a War with us.
Of late.....we might as well have Mad Bob at the Helm of State in my country.....damn sure not a lot of difference in what is going on.
Last edited by SASless; 22nd Dec 2012 at 21:50.
Harry.....you conveniently over look John (who served in Vietnam you may recall) Kerry and the Winter Soldier Project and his testimony before Congress which was a load of horse ****. You probably also ignore his Treasonous Acts in Paris and subsequent support of the North Vietnamese all the while being a Naval Officer.
As you routinely trumpet anti-American and Progressive drivel....that comes as absolutely no surprise.
Kerry has no Honor....violated his Oath as a Naval Officer....gave aid and support to the Enemy....and in a decent World would have been stood against a Wall and been shot for his crimes. He was not.
That he committed Perjury when testifying under Oath before Congress....he should have been tried for that in Federal Court and sentenced to a lengthy period of time in a Federal Prison. He was not.
That he was not prosecuted does not mitigate or lessen the seriousness of his Crimes or Actions.
That he is yet to disclose ALL of his Military Records is proof he did not serve in an Honorable manner and it was only through Political Connections that he was able to cover up adverse action taken against him by the Navy.
My Lai happened....the Army, including Colin Powell, tried to cover it up. They failed in that due to other Soldiers both stopping the killing and reporting it up the Chain of Command. When it was investigated by General Peers....the whole sordid truth was laid out and criminal prosecutions of some lower ranking participants took place. Those Senior Officers who covered it up....were not prosecuted for their crimes. Colin Powell went on to have a very successful career in the Military and Federal Civilian Service.
That My Lai occurred does not grant Kerry absolution for his lies, false testimony, and generally treacherous conduct.....even if he is a Progressive and Democrat.
Nothing you can say will alter that situation either.....as you will only offer up mythical information to paint Kerry in colors other than his true colors which are Yellow....and Red.
As you routinely trumpet anti-American and Progressive drivel....that comes as absolutely no surprise.
Kerry has no Honor....violated his Oath as a Naval Officer....gave aid and support to the Enemy....and in a decent World would have been stood against a Wall and been shot for his crimes. He was not.
That he committed Perjury when testifying under Oath before Congress....he should have been tried for that in Federal Court and sentenced to a lengthy period of time in a Federal Prison. He was not.
That he was not prosecuted does not mitigate or lessen the seriousness of his Crimes or Actions.
That he is yet to disclose ALL of his Military Records is proof he did not serve in an Honorable manner and it was only through Political Connections that he was able to cover up adverse action taken against him by the Navy.
My Lai happened....the Army, including Colin Powell, tried to cover it up. They failed in that due to other Soldiers both stopping the killing and reporting it up the Chain of Command. When it was investigated by General Peers....the whole sordid truth was laid out and criminal prosecutions of some lower ranking participants took place. Those Senior Officers who covered it up....were not prosecuted for their crimes. Colin Powell went on to have a very successful career in the Military and Federal Civilian Service.
That My Lai occurred does not grant Kerry absolution for his lies, false testimony, and generally treacherous conduct.....even if he is a Progressive and Democrat.
Nothing you can say will alter that situation either.....as you will only offer up mythical information to paint Kerry in colors other than his true colors which are Yellow....and Red.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With military people, generally they stay pretty quiet about things that went on,
unless you are a Walt or like Kerry is said to have done, turned on his own.
Where there is smoke there is usually fire so in my mind,
where Kerry is concerned, so many people came out that
has to be some truth to it.
As for Benghazi, well, the truth will come out eventually.
unless you are a Walt or like Kerry is said to have done, turned on his own.
Where there is smoke there is usually fire so in my mind,
where Kerry is concerned, so many people came out that
has to be some truth to it.
As for Benghazi, well, the truth will come out eventually.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaSless
That is a very interesting piece by the US Navy SEAL Officer.
Can anyone answer these
Didn't General Ham and an Admiral get relieved over something to do with
Benghazi ?
Anyone know what it was and what happened to them ?
That is a very interesting piece by the US Navy SEAL Officer.
Can anyone answer these
Didn't General Ham and an Admiral get relieved over something to do with
Benghazi ?
Anyone know what it was and what happened to them ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"does not grant Kerry absolution for his lies, false testimony, and generally treacherous conduct.."
Funny that such a died in the wool commie has three Purple Hearts & a Bronze Star for bravery in action in Vietnam
maybe he actually knew what he was talking about SAS???
Funny that such a died in the wool commie has three Purple Hearts & a Bronze Star for bravery in action in Vietnam
maybe he actually knew what he was talking about SAS???
Thread Starter
Funny that such a died in the wool commie has three Purple Hearts & a Bronze Star for bravery in action in Vietnam
Harry......it is plain you sure don't know what you are talking about!
Kerry was and is an embarrassment for anyone who has served in Combat.
Three Purple Hearts....and not a single minute In-Hospital?
Think about it Harry.....how does one accomplish that?
I spent Six Weeks In Hospital and two months recuperating from my Wounds and it was the Army that issued the Purple Heart.....not me submitting my own name for the Award as in Kerry's awards.
Why is it....the only person I ever heard of taking the Three Hearts and Out was......John Kerry?
Only the Navy and Marine Corps has that option to begin with.
So don't play the Smart Ass when you don't know what you are talking about.
Kerry was and is an embarrassment for anyone who has served in Combat.
Three Purple Hearts....and not a single minute In-Hospital?
Think about it Harry.....how does one accomplish that?
I spent Six Weeks In Hospital and two months recuperating from my Wounds and it was the Army that issued the Purple Heart.....not me submitting my own name for the Award as in Kerry's awards.
Why is it....the only person I ever heard of taking the Three Hearts and Out was......John Kerry?
Only the Navy and Marine Corps has that option to begin with.
So don't play the Smart Ass when you don't know what you are talking about.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaSless
I was trying to work out what he (Harry) was getting at.
I thought he might have been saying it tongue in cheek at one stage
but the lack of smilies made me think not.
I was trying to work out what he (Harry) was getting at.
I thought he might have been saying it tongue in cheek at one stage
but the lack of smilies made me think not.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was - I find SASless a prime example of Florida Man
"A year-long analysis of Associated Press “strange news” stories found that Florida generated more of them, by far, than any other state (examples: “Man wearing sleeping bag as cape attempts robbery”; “Florida lotto winner seeks to open nude dude ranch”)."
"A year-long analysis of Associated Press “strange news” stories found that Florida generated more of them, by far, than any other state (examples: “Man wearing sleeping bag as cape attempts robbery”; “Florida lotto winner seeks to open nude dude ranch”)."
Harry.....you must do more research before you post as it would save you much embarrassment.
Had you done so....you would not have made the gross error you just did.
But....then you never have concerned yourself with the facts when you post so no surprise there.
As you are so typical of most of your ilk....you have not stopped to think about a small State called California.....usually known as "The Land of Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts!"
Thus it would appear you don't have any grasp of Geography or anything else American?
So try again Harry.....offer something useful instead of trolling for a Sucker.
Had you done so....you would not have made the gross error you just did.
But....then you never have concerned yourself with the facts when you post so no surprise there.
As you are so typical of most of your ilk....you have not stopped to think about a small State called California.....usually known as "The Land of Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts!"
Thus it would appear you don't have any grasp of Geography or anything else American?
So try again Harry.....offer something useful instead of trolling for a Sucker.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are people really and seriously suggesting that guest military assets in a country can act freely, merely because of their geographical location?
The "cross border authority" is indeed an important concept, because its issue is a decision that takes the step from peace to war. However, say some F15s from RAF Mildenhall were to bomb Whitehall, that would be an act of war no different than if the aircraft had flown from Missouri to drop similar bombs.
When there's no functioning government, it might be a more flexible, but I don't think it's a big deal - opening fire in someone else's country when you're already there raises as many eyebrows as flying in to do so.
If you confine your violence to inside your embassies and consulates, then it's a different matter again, but again I don't see there's a major issue with whether the origin of that violence was flying from Sicily or somewhere out in the Sahara.
The "cross border authority" is indeed an important concept, because its issue is a decision that takes the step from peace to war. However, say some F15s from RAF Mildenhall were to bomb Whitehall, that would be an act of war no different than if the aircraft had flown from Missouri to drop similar bombs.
When there's no functioning government, it might be a more flexible, but I don't think it's a big deal - opening fire in someone else's country when you're already there raises as many eyebrows as flying in to do so.
If you confine your violence to inside your embassies and consulates, then it's a different matter again, but again I don't see there's a major issue with whether the origin of that violence was flying from Sicily or somewhere out in the Sahara.
In the scheme of things....just what would the Libyan government been able to do....ask us to leave? Send their Air Force after us....dispatch their Navy....mobilize their Army...cut off Diplomatic Relations....file a protest at the UN Security Council.....hell...even Attack our Consulate maybe?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
awblain
If forces are in country, wouldn't they have a status of forces agreement
that lays out what can and can't be done and under what situations and
under what authority ?
Also, US Marines protecting an embassy are protecting US soil,
not Libyan soil.
Re flying in, so does that mean the RAF / UK Gov't carried out an act of war
on Libya when they flew an armed C-130 into the desert to rescue British citizens ?
If forces are in country, wouldn't they have a status of forces agreement
that lays out what can and can't be done and under what situations and
under what authority ?
Also, US Marines protecting an embassy are protecting US soil,
not Libyan soil.
Re flying in, so does that mean the RAF / UK Gov't carried out an act of war
on Libya when they flew an armed C-130 into the desert to rescue British citizens ?
Thread Starter
Also, US Marines protecting an embassy are protecting US soil,
not Libyan soil.
not Libyan soil.
Diplomats will always caution military on any action that undermines Embassy.
Its why Libyan Embassy issue in UK was so protracted / complicated as there was no clear conclusive proof that shot the killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher was fired from Consulate. Now had they mounted a machine gun just fired at people then they would have been an attack on UK.
Re flying in, so does that mean the RAF / UK Gov't carried out an act of war
on Libya when they flew an armed C-130 into the desert to rescue British citizens ?
on Libya when they flew an armed C-130 into the desert to rescue British citizens ?
Yeah right....given a choice of blaming some Terrorists or perhaps the UK Armed Police and SAS.....who would be able to decide who shot the Bobbie?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo
"If done so without the permission of host Govt then I believe it is tantamount to an act of war, however the nuances on whether it was armed or not can be difficult to prove."
I would class C-130's with SAS/SF Troops on board as armed and considering
the SAS were in country with weapons picked up from the embassy, I would
say that permission was not granted and they were not out for an afternoon stroll.
"no clear conclusive proof that shot the killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher was fired from Consulate."
BS of the highest order.
The Libyans were lucky to get out. A pity the SAS were not sent in to
"do the job" that should have been done juts like the Iranian embassy.
You never know, one day we might just get to the bottom of it.
"However if they fire without being fired upon then they pretty much lose diplomatic protection and any actions of host Govt in response could be classified as acceptable."
Of course, but that is why you have very clear ROE's and
you don't station hot headed dick heads in those roles.
"If done so without the permission of host Govt then I believe it is tantamount to an act of war, however the nuances on whether it was armed or not can be difficult to prove."
I would class C-130's with SAS/SF Troops on board as armed and considering
the SAS were in country with weapons picked up from the embassy, I would
say that permission was not granted and they were not out for an afternoon stroll.
"no clear conclusive proof that shot the killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher was fired from Consulate."
BS of the highest order.
The Libyans were lucky to get out. A pity the SAS were not sent in to
"do the job" that should have been done juts like the Iranian embassy.
You never know, one day we might just get to the bottom of it.
"However if they fire without being fired upon then they pretty much lose diplomatic protection and any actions of host Govt in response could be classified as acceptable."
Of course, but that is why you have very clear ROE's and
you don't station hot headed dick heads in those roles.