Our Military Personnel Should Always be Protected on Foreign Soil

O

I think all regardless of political persuasion can agree on that.

But our military personnel have not been protected as they should have been.

Let me give you what I have learned, and you decide who is at fault.

Last year 50 security analysts with the Department of Defense signed a letter that said the information concerning the situation with ISIS had been severely altered from what they submitted to their boss, a general (can’t remember his name) who was in charge of Centcom (Central Command).

In their analysis they had said that ISIS was getting more dangerous, their numbers were greater than had been thought originally, and they posed a significant threat to anyone in the region where they were.

At least two people, top military people, I have heard them say on TV that Obama runs more military operations from the Oval Office than any other President they have seen. In other words, he seems to want to make the call on everything involving the military, usurping what should be the call of generals on the ground who know what is going on, and can make decisions on military conditions that are ever changing and not static.

The general who was in charge of Centcom at the time the analysts submitted their information was transferred to the Pentagon afterwards and given another job. I can either assume that he had reached his highest level of incompetence, and had moved on to another job to again reach his highest level of incompetence at that job, or that he was disgusted when he passed the information the security analysts had given him on to a higher authority, presumably Obama, and the Obama administration did not want him having to answer questions about what the security analysts really said.  I‘m sure they found the general an office in the Pentagon where reporters couldn’t possibly find him.

So what comes out on TV and in Congressional hearings? Everything is fine. ISIS is on the run, and not capable of attacking us in force. Any individual attacks are a desperate attempt on their part to let us know a few of them are still around.

This is highly dangerous to our troops, because when they are sent to fight ISIS, the force needed is what is sent, based upon intelligence info which the security analysts originally provided, and was accurate info.

In addition to that, there is the military equipment. The lighter equipment can be used to make IED’s (improvised explosive devices), and the greater presence of ISIS and their ability to do this is an imminent and ever present danger to our troops, picking them off one at a time, and either killing them or maiming them for life.

The heavier equipment, such as rocket launchers are present in larger numbers than when we and the troops are told ISIS is on the run. Rocket launchers, as I’m sure you are aware, can be loaded on the back of a pickup truck and transported where needed. The old howitzers from WWII  are obsolete because of their lack of mobility in a rapid fashion. Modern day rocket launchers also can fire about 10 to 15 rockets at least by the time you can get off one round and reload a howitzer.

Even though what the security analysts were saying about their reports being greatly altered to where the TV appearances by generals and others were complete lies, a Republican Congress did not take their words for it, even though the contention of lies was highly detrimental to the Obama administration. The Republican Congressional committees wanted to verify that by hearings, not foregone conclusive hearings like the Democrats hold, but an honest finding. Three committees investigated, and found the security analysts were telling the truth.

We know about all the lies now when it went beyond the truth that the security analysts told, and maybe our troops will be better prepared for a better than prepared and larger ISIS they will meet.

Then we come to who will protect our troops better in the future.

Donald Trump says he will strengthen the military, which in numbers is the lowest it has been since WWII, at a time when ISIS is on the rise, contrary to what the Obama administration is alleging.

Whether he will do that remains to be seen. Politicians make promises all the time that are lost in the wind when they are re-elected. Donald Trump is not a politician, but whether that makes any difference in his promises, we shall see.

We do know Hillary’s record in the Benghazi story. For those who have lost the facts, let me update you.

Ambassador Stevens had asked then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for additional security at the Benghazi Embassy innumerable times before the attack. E-mails verify that. She sent no additional security.

We have two different versions by two men who were on the ground during the Benghazi attack, but only in what men could have been saved. One says 2 men could have been saved; the other all 4 men.

I do not know the position of the men when they assessed the situation, one could have been in the embassy itself, and the other in the annex.

Sometimes people unfamiliar with the situation think an embassy is a stand-alone building, but it is really a compound of more than one structure, possibly some out buildings and grounds.

I write quite a few murder stories for my blog, and the facts are never 100% there. I have to take known facts and project from there what happened, because the murder victim can’t speak, and the killer probably won’t. I have found that when I do that quite frequently, when the killer might later dole out a few facts if he is trying to mitigate his sentence, what he says is often on the money or close to what I projected it would be.

I’m quite certain that Ambassador Stevens had intelligence from the Libyan people who were friendly to us about what was about to happen that day, another 9/11 day in case you forgot.  If one of the two men who said 4 men could be saved was in the embassy, then I think this is what he saw and heard. Ambassador Stevens frantically e-mailing or calling Hillary that they needed backup immediately. That would have been in the morning.

Our troops were three hours away in Spain, and had it not been for a stand down order (meaning do not go) that had to come from Hillary or Obama, they would have been on the plane and there in the early afternoon. That would have probably been in time to save Ambassador Stevens and the other three men.

By the way, the other three men, and I believe all of them, were CIA operatives, and not military personnel in the strictest sense. They were, however, entitled to the full protection of our military.

The other man, who might have been in the annex, and unaware of any communications between Ambassador Stevens and Hillary Clinton at the State Department, might have thought only the last two men to be killed could have been saved.

Hillary Clinton did get to the Situation Room at the White House late that afternoon, along with other officials. Obama was nowhere to be seen, and nobody seems to know where he was. Hillary was the highest ranking official in the Situation Room, and still had time to at least save  the last two men killed, but she sat on her ass, and watched it all develop on live TV, and did nothing.

It’s up to you. Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton protect the troops better?  If our military personnel are willing to go over there and be killed or injured for life for us, we need to give them every protection possible that they deserve, not lies about what is going on and how many ISIS they are fighting.

 

Add comment