October 31, 2012

The Benghazi Debacle

Rather than doing a typical article consisting of my own verbal diarrhea, I figured this write-up from the New York Times article was full of much more gut-wrenching interesting information that I could use to provide some WTF?! additional commentary and insight. I will do my absolute best to keep the sarcasm to a bare minimum, but it is nearly impossible after reading this article. Also, be sure to take note of the article title. Not exactly the conclusion I reached, but it is the New York Times.

Let’s begin…

The number of State Department security agents at the compound in Benghazi fluctuated, sometimes dipping to as few as two. Five American security agents were at the compound on Sept. 11 — three stationed there and two traveling with Mr. Stevens.

In addition to the Americans, there were several armed Libyans who served as a quick-reaction force. The Americans were also able to call on the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, a militia supportive of the Libyan government. Yet another small group of Libyan guards stood watch at the gates and perimeter of the compound, but this group was unarmed and equipped with only whistles and batons.


or Log In


About the Author

is a former Army Special Forces soldier who spent time at 1st Special Forces Group and 20th Special Forces Group between 2004 and 2008. He is currently the Director of Communications and Social Media for the Green Beret Foundation, a non-profit charity focused on supporting wounded and killed Special Forces soldiers and their families. Blake is currently pursuing a bachelors degree in Marketing. Twitter: @bmiles84

To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

  • Senor Les

    "STRAC POSTURE" was non-existent. This concept would/will insure incidents of this nature never occur if embraced. [email protected]

  • seamusoshit

    I think you (the author) meant that security and our footprint are directly (positively) related. I'd even go so far as to say that these two factors are exponentially linked--the more security, the more exagerrated our diplomatic footprint becomes. I personally don't have a good answer to the problem of protecting our personnel in shitholes such as Libya. The bottom line is that the US walks a fine line when placing diplomatic resources in these places--too much of a big stick and our presence seems hegemonic in nature, while not enough of a big stick leaves our people looking vulnerable. Sadly, in this case, it left our people stretched ridiculously thin, and we all know what the outcome was for those who were left high and dry.

  • AME1 MJH

    This reads like a lead into a situation that got a lot of  US Mariens in Beirut in 1982.

  • Rogue1

    According to this there were no asstets within range. It also states that the orders to move assets to Sigonella were given about 3 hours after the attack started. Options were not presented until 6:30 pm EST. Formal deployment orders were not given until after 8:30 pm EST. Could those 3 hours have made a difference in assets arriving before the fighting was over? Could they have made it in time to make a difference if routed directly to Benghazi rather than to Sicily? http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/libya-attack-shows-america-s-limits-in-the-region-288169

  • Rogue1

    Now Fox challenges the CIA... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/exclusive-security-officials-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/