'The Panetta Doctrine?' Americans on their own if attacked

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Oct 29, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    'The Panetta Doctrine?' Americans on their own if attacked​



    Rick Moran
    October 29, 2012



    I think Goldberg has it about right:

    It seems obvious that Panetta is trying protect Obama from responsibility for the administration's Benghazi response. I don't think that works. The decision to outsource the call is still a presidential decision.

    But there are two problems bigger problems with the Panetta doctrine.
    First, Panetta says they didn't have real-time information. Uh, if having a live video feed and real-time reports from assets on the ground for hours doesn't count as real-time information, what does? And if, as rumors suggest, the drones monitoring the situation were armed, the idea that the administration was trying to avoid some kind of "black hawk down" situation seems incomprehensible.

    Which brings us to the second, I think bigger, problem with the Panetta doctrine. If the circumstances in Libya didn't meet the "enough information" threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does? And, note, Panetta & Co. make it sound as if the decision to let the Americans on the scene twist in the wind was sort of a no-brainer, not a difficult decision. So what happened in Libya didn't even come close to the threshold for intervention.

    What does that mean? Well, it seems to me that any embassy or consulate subjected to a surprise attack will likely catch the administration off guard. That's why they call them "surprise attacks," after all. According to the Panetta doctrine, the very essence of what makes a surprise attack a surprise attack likely precludes any commitment of U.S. forces to repel it. The message to our diplomats and troops: You're on your own. The message to terrorists: As long as you keep your attacks minimally confusing, you win.

    That's outrageous.

    No doubt there was concern about killing innocent civilians in any military assistance we would have sent. But seriously, how many civilians were hanging around when the terrorists were firing mortars, launching RPG's, and firing with automatic weapons at the CIA Annex - or the consulate for that matter?



    The "Panetta Doctrine" doesn't pass the smell test and would appear to be a transparent attempt to excuse administration inaction in trying to rescue our diplomats.


    Read more:
    Blog: 'The Panetta Doctrine?' Americans on their own if attacked
     
  2. Rozman
    Offline

    Rozman Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    16,571
    Thanks Received:
    3,060
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    Ratings:
    +6,687
    I was under the assumption that when one of ours is pinned down
    under fire or trapped behind enemy lines we got our asses in gear
    and moved heaven and earth and did everything humanly possible
    to rescue them.And if that didn't work we tried harder.

    I am astounded that it appears orders were given to stop any effort
    to offer assistance.

    This Benghazi situation should be on the top of our list of things to do.
    Shocking that the Libs are so against any mention of investigation or against
    those on the right demanding answers.
     
  3. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    Really. Please provide an example of a time when American forces went in, guns blazing, to rescue embassy personnel.

    You remember...Obama authorized the use of Navy Seals to liberate Americans who'd been captured by Somali pirates. But, in that instance, the military officials involved had information about the number of captors, their location, their armament, and they weren't on the soil of a sovereign nation. So, it was a different scenario.

    Further, what do you think should have been done? What would you have done, in Panetta's shoes?

    Having real time information that the embassy has been overrun is not the same as having real time information about the number of attackers, how they are armed, and who they are.
     
  4. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,445
    Thanks Received:
    9,340
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +20,944
    Yesterday, former National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane added this on Obama’s non-response to the Benghazi 9-11 terrorist attack:

    “To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party. Outrageous.”


    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...etter-to-die-a-hero-than-live-a-coward-video/
     
  5. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    That was under that dasterdly President Bush. You could blame him for his interest in keeping that tradition of rescue of people. Now we have Oblamer who doesn't give a flying phuc for any American. Oblamer keeps telling us KMAMYOYO.
     

Share This Page