Could US Destoryers help at Benghazi?

[MarAzul]

In my opinion, you bet. Two were at Sea North of Benghazi, about 14 hours away. Three more in port in Southern Italy, 7 more hours out.

One could have given fire support and changed the out come. Two could have also sent in a rescue force and covered their withdrawal all the way out.
The following picture is from Google earth showing the line of fire possible from a theoretical point at sea and the US Embassy and the Anex. About 6500 yards range to the Embassy and 7600 to the Anex.
A Navy Fire Controlman could have set up the firing mission using nothing more than I have here on my desk, on his desk and a communication link with the guys on site to spot targets off a buildings or cross road. Ty Woods would have that knowledge.
The Brits left days earlier so warning time was there, Leadership was not.

6500 or 7600 yards is a peace of cake for a 5" 62 naval rifle. The US Navy has known and done this
sort of Mission since the days of Jefferson. What ever the hell is lacking today is not so clear but don't elected the one that should have know better President. Something missing there with, "What difference does it make?"

 

[MarAzul]

Dang, I wish I could edit the title. Remove the a please.

 

[Denny Crane]

Our destroyer wouldn't have been necessary if we'd have pulled our diplomats out of harm's way like all the other smart nations did.

 

[julius]

boo! benghazi!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Dang, I wish I could edit the title. Remove the a please.

Done.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

If only we could have shot into a crowd of people from 4 miles away, there's always next time I suppose.

 

[Denny Crane]

I lived on Maui for a few years. From there, we could see this island called Kaho'olawe. For years, the navy shelled the island for target practice. Wild goats had long ago eaten every bit of vegetation on the island, so it was bare.

The navy stopped using it for target practice and gave it back to the native hawaiians. Every day there's a helicopter that takes a crew of workers from Maui to the island to find and dismantle unexploded ordinance. One day, people will actually live on it again.

So since there's no more Kaho'olawe for target practice, Benghazi is the next best thing. I suppose.

 

[MARIS61]

A "destoryer" sounds like censorship to me.

 

[MarAzul]

Our destroyer wouldn't have been necessary if we'd have pulled our diplomats out of harm's way like all the other smart nations did.

I have no idea why we had people there in harms way. What I do know is IF the leadership deems it necessary to send people into harms way, then they have an absolute responsibility to support those people to the fullest with any and all means. The responsibility to do what ever is necessary goes hand in hand with the decision to have them stay where they should not be.

I tend to agree with your take, since I can not come up with good reason to send people to Benghazi in the first place. Jefferson had a reason but I see none for Clinton/Obama. But dammit, throwing up hands and talking about some fucking video is not a responsible substitute for the action required to recover from a piss poor plan.

 

[MarAzul]

If only we could have shot into a crowd of people from 4 miles away, there's always next time I suppose.

A group of guys operating a mortar is not a crowd in my mind, it's a target. Those dancing about watching the action will learn from the experience, if they survive.
Don't worry about 4 miles, that's just a little over point blank.

 

[MarAzul]

boo! benghazi

How does one develop the Julius level of apathy?

 

[Denny Crane]

I have no idea why we had people there in harms way. What I do know is IF the leadership deems it necessary to send people into harms way, then they have an absolute responsibility to support those people to the fullest with any and all means. The responsibility to do what ever is necessary goes hand in hand with the decision to have them stay where they should not be.

I tend to agree with your take, since I can not come up with good reason to send people to Benghazi in the first place. Jefferson had a reason but I see none for Clinton/Obama. But dammit, throwing up hands and talking about some fucking video is not a responsible substitute for the action required to recover from a piss poor plan.

I'm pretty sure the defense of our ambassadors belongs in the hands of the host country.

jlprk claims we had a CIA operation going on. If that's true, we had no business doing that, either.

 

[MarAzul]

hands of the host country

It does indeed, until they can't not or will not do the job. Then it reverts to the Secretary of State and the President and the forces available to them. The use of Naval assets has been used for this purpose, several times in our history.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not a military guru, so forgive me if I seem a little uneducated in this regard. So how would bombing the area help? It seems it would just kill innocent civilians IMO

 

[MarAzul]

So since there's no more Kaho'olawe for target practice

I believe San Clemente still serves to tune up the Fire Controlman's skills. Sometime you need to scatter the goats with a near shot so you can get on with the drill.. You might be able to hear them at work when the winds right.

 

[MarAzul]

kill innocent civilians

I am not so sure there are "innocent" around a mortar squad. But in any case, a computer controlled 5 in. rifle is really accurate at that range. The host country should have cleared them all out,
failing that, I don't think you worry about innocents watching the bad guys do their evil deeds. If you aren't willing to do the hard stuff to support your people, you should not have them there in the first place.

 

[MarAzul]

You may not agree that you would want the US Navy to go to the rescue of our people in Benghazi, where they may well have killed a person or two that was not one of the bad guys. And that is fine. But if we are not willing to do such things to support the people we send into an insecure situation, then we should not send them in the first place or at least extract them before the shit hits the fan. Mr. Clinton did not think this through nor consider her responsibilities through to what ultimately would be required of her. She should not have had these people there in the first place, but she did, and when the host country failed to support her people, she punted and pulled some bull shit story out of no where, about an insulting video. You can't fuck it up worse than that. Remember that when you cast your vote.

Now I am sure that there should be and email or two in existence about how she navigated through this mess, but there does not seem to be one. How the hell can that be? Format write is the only answer. Perhaps disk replacement followed by destruction of the original.

 

[MarAzul]

Done

Now put the r in the right place too. Please.

 

[Denny Crane]

It does indeed, until they can't not or will not do the job. Then it reverts to the Secretary of State and the President and the forces available to them. The use of Naval assets has been used for this purpose, several times in our history.

If they won't do it, pull the ambassadors out.

It doesn't fall to anyone else to protect them.

 

[MarAzul]

It doesn't fall to anyone else to protect them.

You are half way home. But you are wrong on the last half. I do not know what was so compelling that require her to leave them there. And I can't not say she did not have good reason to leave them in place. But once that decision has be made, our Secretary of State and the President are indeed responsible for protection of our people they leave in harms way, above and beyond what the Home country provides. People have a right to expect they weight this decision properly and follow through with their responsibilities. Then the voters must hold them accountable. She failed everyone.