Tuesday, May 28, 2013

A Response To The President's "Surrender Proclamation" -- Benghazi: What the Response To The Attack Should Have Been

Benghazi:  What the Response To The Attack Should Have Been

Unless there was an immediate threat of all-out nuclear war from the Russians, or the Chinese, and according to how events transpired in Benghazi, pursuant to media reports and transcripts of testimony from Congressional hearings, the Benghazi compound and the annex should have been defended in this manner:

  • *Special forces in the vicinity of Italy should have been dispatched at the first sign of trouble or as requested by those at the Benghazi compound.
  • *F-16s and Gunships should have been deployed to Benghazi (from Sigonella [Naval Air Station At the tip Southern Tip of Italy])
  • *Marines, Air-craft, and strategic combat elements should have been deployed from USS John C. Stennis battle group
  • *Real-time intelligence and coordinating elements, available over Benghazi in the form of Drones and from on-the-ground tactical forces in the area should have been used to manage counter-attack, cover fire, rescue operations, pursuit, kill and capture operations, mop-up, and post ops intelligence gathering.
  • *Post Benghazi operations to include track downs, target locations of associated hostile elements identified and marked for immediate retaliation.
  • *A second wave of follow-up offensives conducted as needed rapidly deployed to secure any areas that needed it, extract personnel, munitions, weapons, etc.
  • *With tactical operations concluded, a follow up of propaganda with the dual messages of "Making Libya Safe for the Libyans," and a general announcement:  "If You Attack Us, We will Hunt You Down and Obliterate You."


A public declaration by the American Commander In Chief, that the Benghazi operation signals a line in the sand; that no attacks anywhere in the world against U.S. interests will be tolerated, and the announcement of an immediate change in any area with troop deployments of a shift in rules of engagement; i.e., Afghanistan: Put hostile elements on notice that they have three weeks to surrender their arms or be wiped out (to secure that nation so that no base hosile to the U.S. can ever emerge from there)... State in no uncertain terms, that when our nation is safe from hostilities, then and only then our troops will come home.

With all due respect to the panty-waists who could not or would not put this or something like it into operation, while resources were available to them, the result of inaction has been not only a failure, and a political flap at home, but four American casualties, and a bright orange flag signaling that we can be attacked anywhere at any time, and there will be no consequences from doing so.

Instead of a secure nation, we have since been subjected to the first casualty producing terrorist attack (Boston) since Benghazi.  So emboldened are our enemies, that two idiots carried out a "dry-run" (albeit deadly) attack on the U.S. as a prelude to a much bigger attack still to come.

Was a lesson learned from that?

Of course not.  Instead you had your know-nothing, no responsibility Presidential figure-head, who's just been caught torching the Constitution by spying on its citizens and harrassing, intimidating,and using the force of government to punish them, delivering a lame speech about getting rid of Gitmo and backing off the war on terror.

What does that speech do? Figure-head might as well have invited another attack on Americans.  I urge you to be ready, because I can assure you:  America's enemies were not trembling in their sneakers as a result of that declaration.

Vanguard Of Freedom

No comments:

Post a Comment