The implications of the Panetta doctrine

From the other day:

Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground. The “basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” he said

The US had the World’s Fair of “real-time information” (live video from a drone or two of a seven hour attack, constant contact with the consulate and annex, etc.), so Panetta’s statement is transparent rubbish meant to deflect blame, no doubt from the president. But imagine for a moment if Panetta were serious. It’s an open invitation to bad actors to carry out sneak attacks on US facilities around the world.

If this were a novel, you might think it over-the-top to create characters with this level of incompetence. HT: JG

3 Responses to “The implications of the Panetta doctrine”

  1. David/California Says:

    From a military standpoint, which I assume is the basis for a SecDef’s ‘judgement’, his statement is nonsensical.

    Tactically, ground troops would need a precisely defined objective, sufficient manpower and firepower to prevail against a pessimistic estimate of enemy war-making capabilities, and provision to egress or hold-in-place for a defined duration.

    There was ample information available from on-site observers to make the tactical decisions necessary, and to take action. Panetta’s bizarre passivity in the face of military assault on American civilians on American soil can only make sense if there were strategic considerations (such as domestic politics) which have not been disclosed to the rest of us.

    I wait with considerable impatience to discover the truth – was the deaths of four Americans civilians, including two bona fide heros, the result of incompetence, cowardice… or treason?

  2. MarkD Says:

    I’ll go with incompetence and cowardice. Treason would require evidence I haven’t seen yet.

  3. David/California Says:

    MarkD –

    If the Russian government’s accusation that Ambassador Steven’s was recruiting Al Queda/Salafist guerillas, and sending them and Libyan weapons gathered by the CIA and stored in Ben Ghazi to radical Islamists fighting the Syrian government, than ‘aid and comfort to the enemy’ may be applicable.

    What was in the two warehouses guarded by the CIA, and emptied by the attackers in Ben Ghazi?

    What role did Syria’s ally Iran, with whom Obama was trying to ‘normalize’ relations, play in identifying the targets and planning the attack?

    Was the decision to let Americans die, and lie about the circumstances, based on avoiding another “Fast and Furious” debacle during a political campaign?

    America wants to know.

Leave a Reply