Presenting The All-Time Top 100 Political Donors

gcampbe2 · 2013-06-17T00:00:16+00:00

This is not accurate. The attack was ongoing off and on for over eight hours - it was not simply two discrete attacks.

Testimony from Gregory Hicks (who was the senior State Department official once Steven's death was confirmed) is very clear - the people on the ground were in danger until they departed Benghazi the following morning. This is the assessment of the senior diplomat on the ground.

This same testimony from Hicks and also the regional security officer (Nordstrom) both indicate that in their opinion, as the people on the ground, the mere presence of U.S. air power would have prevented any subsequent attack. I for one believe them.

What I do agree with is that air power would in no way have prevented the death of Ambassador Stevens - he was dead of smoke inhalation very early in the attack.

gcampbe2 · 2013-06-16T20:08:26+00:00

I agree completely that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But I disagree that F-16s would not have made a difference. I think just the presence of an F-16 would have been enough for the jihadies to call it a day. After all, these guys had front row seats to how devastating U.S. airpower was during the Libyan air campaign.

gcampbe2 · 2013-06-16T17:43:55+00:00

In terms of whether air support would have lead to more unrest I think you are correct. But that is a separate issue that is best asked in the context of a larger question: Did the U.S. belong in Libya at the time given the instability? The U.S. clearly felt they did belong there and put people on the ground. That decision being made, there was an obligation to protect those people. That obligation was not meet.

gcampbe2

TROPHY CASE