13 Hours - Implications of a Rescue That Was Not Possible -and- The Real Incompetence

Just saw the movie "13 Hours" by noted action director Michael Bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Hours

His movie _Pearl Harbor_ was more historically accurate (and a horrid failure, compared to the book _Day of Infamy_ and the movie _Tora Tora Tora!. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_%28film%29. Actually, the _Transformers_ movies were more historically accurate.

I have no particular quarrel with the fight scenes as portrayed. Nor does the movie depart significantly from the timeline of the actual events. (This is very different from _Pearl Harbor_, in which a wounded sailor conscious-and-breathing was triaged as expectant, using symbols the US Navy has never used and no one was using during World War II.)

What I do have a quarrel with is elegant lying by indirection. The implication the viewer is left with is that the United States _could_ have done something to save the "Ambo" (Ambassador Stevens) yet for inexplicable reasons, mostly bureaucratic incompetence, did not.

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Herewith my rebuttal:

-- It takes time to do anything in a foreign country. The Tripoli team being tied up at the airport ("gift shop," he quips, but as shown in the movie, arguments over authorization and bribes) is a great example. (Also, who was guarding the Tripoli embassy at this point? US Marines and Post 1, I presume? I hope?) It is completely correct to wait for authorization before initiating a movement, out of a nominally secret facility, to a known location where any retreat back 'home' will draw attacks and fire. It is foolhardy, bordering on asinine, to launch a rescue operation with six operatives, a handful of locals of dubious reliability, precisely two (lightly) armored vehicles, and only one heavy weapon - a grenade launcher - inexplicably left at the diplomatic compound. It is especially difficult to simultaneously launch such a mission and defend your own facility at the same time. They got lucky.

-- It is unreasonable to think that 20 minutes difference one way or another could have saved the day, or that six operators versus the overrun team in the compound would have saved the day. Friction happens, and the station chief ordering them to hold is part of the game. If anything, the suggestion that they 'went' without permission casts strong doubts on their discipline, courage and competence. (They didn't.)

-- It takes time - lots of time - to launch any support from bases elsewhere. First one requires authorization. Any duty officer who launches fighter jets based on some woman complaining on a sat phone would be lucky to be court martialed - he would be risking a training accident in which he would be the star guest. The military requires authentication before launching any mission. That means 'authority' and that authority is vested ultimately in the President of the United States, or POTUS. For POTUS to make this decision, he has to be briefed - meaning he has to know what is going on, through the 1000 member strong National Security Council, represented by his National Security Advisor. POTUS is kept backgrounded on current events with a customized, classified newspaper prepared daily just for him, it's several hundred pages. IF the National Command Authority (another fancy word for POTUS) authorizes the mission, THEN the mission has to be planned and briefed. Aircraft need to be fueled. Pilots and other operators need crew rest. Ordinance has to be uploaded and target packages (intelligence) prepared and distributed. If you fuck this up, you do things like drop on the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia 'by mistake' (yes, it happened.)

-- So let's assume for the moment that POTUS says, "It's a go!" and the military base or ship has a planned mission package for air support to American activities in Benghazi (more about this in a minute), and they can literally shove the throttles to the firewall within minutes of the order, you still have this nasty detail called FLIGHT TIME. You can get there quick (if quick is measured in hours) but burn up all your fuel, or you can get their slow and have fuel to either 1) get home or 2) hang out over the battle area. You usually do not have fuel for both. Refuelinghttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=507606925468585385#editor/target=post;postID=4152154095176331067 becomes critical and you need either carrier capable aircraft, available tankers (and aircraft capable of refueling midair), or a secure land base with a fuel component. Don't even talk about refueling military aircraft at local airports of dubious reliability and security. One bullet in the wrong place and you lose not only a pilot or two but a multi million dollar airframe - and the mission. See also http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2012/10/options-in-benghazi.html

-- So let's assume that some hypothetical carrier battle group has all the pieces, all the planning, its own tankers, the works. (And also CSAR, Combat Search and Rescue, to pick up any pilots who bang up their aircraft. And more ground support to support CSAR... and air cover for CSAR... see how this snowballs?) They are hot over Benghazi, with the latest in "reach out and touch someone" hanging under their wings. WHO DO THEY DROP ON? You have some trained 'operators' on the ground but you need secure communications, a decision on where to put the ordinance, a target worthy of the ordinance, and some way to drop on, say, the perimeter without accidentally putting a 2000 lb cluster bomb on, say, the CIA Annex or the Benghazi hospital. Combat Air Support is HARD and asking guys who know how, but are out of the service, to also call in CAS - probably without the proper codes, commo, laser target designators and equipment.

-- If you fuck this up, the wrong people die in job lots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Sayyd_Alma_Kalay_airstrike comes to mind. Awkward if you kill the Ambo you were trying to save. You can also end up killing friendlies, which costs you their help and ends up with a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu_Mile situation.

-- You can certainly have drones over the city, in a position to provide information, but not be in a position to downlink this to a 'secret' base, or the diplomatic protection team for an ambassador. It is nice to pretend that maybe the drones are armed, but given that there are presently two Federal agencies that run armed Predators - CIA and the US Air Force -- perhaps we can credit CIA with a little competence and assume they knew the drone's armament status. Even if it was armed (a colossal waste of fuel, given that nobody knew in advance that Benghazi was about to take a dump), that only gives you _one shot_. What do you drop on? See targeting decision above.

-- Suggesting unarmed high speed fly-bys as a method of 'intimidating' the attackers is also asinine. Some people just don't intimidate that much. You also get diminishing returns - they hide and duck for a minute, but after a decided lack of 'BIG EXPLOSIONS HERE,' they get up and continue with the mission.

It is however true that criminal incompetence was involved throughout the Benghazi affair. However this incompetence did not take place on the night of the attack, or the morning after. It takes years to screw up this bad, and since what they screwed up is pretty much security, I have a lot of opinions on that - see next post.

13 Hours - The Real Incompetence

In my prior rant, I cut apart how Michael Bey chose to portray the US response to the invasion of the (nearly empty) diplomatic compound and later attack on the CIA Annex.

Now I will cut apart the incompetence of the command teams and security personnel. No disrespect to the dead, but y'all fucked up.

-- You don't build an Animal Shelter - let alone establish a sensitive facility or military base - without fundamental basics. You analyze the security threats in the area. You put up defensive measures, including a perimeter and defense in depth, separating sensitive areas from less sensitive ones. You have quality guards appropriate to the threat level. You establish relationships so that there is a reaction force, that WILL come to your rescue with quality personnel, in an established time frame. You have an evacuation plan. You train your personnel for contingency scenarios including both evacuation and siege. You plan for and have equipment and trained personnel (and auxiliary backups) for any emergency that can happen in a 'civilian' setting. Fire, Medical, Armed Intrusion, Workplace Violence, Bomb Threat, Suspicious Package ... now allow for the fact that you are thousands of miles from highly qualified Western help.

-- NGOs - Non Governmental Organizations - who operate in dangerous areas often do so WITHOUT the benefit of being allowed to possess firearms or hire highly skilled, heavily armed foreign nationals (effectively mercenaries, although they don't fit the legal definition). They have worked out numerous survival techniques which are particularly appropriate to both diplomatic and intelligence personnel. Key techniques neglected in Benghazi included:

--- effective liaison with local government officials and armed groups, including potential adversaries

--- a medical logistics plan for obtaining medical attention for injured NGO personnel

--- restrictions on travel, movement routes and exposure appropriate to the situation - it is the height of incompetence to be tripped up by a roadblock when picking up someone from the airport!

--- a clearly defined, secured perimeter protected by appropriate measures, including lights you have positive control over; security cameras with pan-tilt-zoom and night vision capability; signage including host nation signage as appropriate

--- a tripwire of local but highly motivated, trained security personnel (who may or may not be armed) who will protect the perimeter and provide essential warning of a security breach

--- an outer tripwire of local law enforcement, also highly motivated (by diverse means, including bribery)

--- security personnel who speak the local language and can effectively interact with all of the above

--- an inner perimeter with bunkers against heavy weapons attacks

--- a clearly defined evacuation plan which can be executed within two (2) hours of the decision, including a destruction plan if sensitive information or equipment is involved

--- basic logistics needs (food, water, medical supplies) for at least twice the intended duration of a siege; don't forget the snacks!

Hotel Rwanda actually did a better job of defending itself and keeping the people inside alive than either compound did! Medicos Sin Fronteres does a better job of protecting its folks - admittedly with a very different security model, but an effective one. (Their bribe is medical care for all parties, which is very attractive to everyone who carries a gun including potential attackers...)

To hammer on some key points:

-- The 'security guards' have to dress up one of the locals in armor and a helmet and drag him along to interpret, and still can't tell who the good guys and the bad guys are!

-- The medical planning was especially poor. At least two of the non combatant CIA personnel should have been cross qualified and trained in combat lifesaver skills (basically first aid plus), with necessary equipment at hand.

-- No bunkers or other protective facilities were provided at the CIA annex. This is literally the first thing an infantry unit does when it takes control of an area. Dumb, dumb dumb! Third world soldiers do this! Get out your shovel and DIG! OK, maybe you didn't have any idea of that threat level, but those neatly landscaped facilities imply gardening tools, right? DIG IN!

-- The facilities at the diplomatic yard were too big, too spread out, and impossible to protect or control due to the enormous perimeter. The Ambassador was poorly served by the decision to shelter in place under those conditions. He should have E&E'd (escape and evaded) out.

-- A safe room should have provisions for what to do if the building catches fire or is set on fire. This necessarily includes self contained breathing protection (SCBA) NOT GAS MASKS, which are nearly useless in a smoke environment. This could also include several ordinary fire extinguishers, sand buckets (especially useful against incendiary liquids) and possibly even a portable foam system. (This is also very useful if, say, an evacuation helicopter crashes at the remote site, which is totally a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw)

-- Upon being trapped, the close in team should have immediately executed a breakout. So you get killed (aww....) or your principal gets held hostage (sux0r) ... but at least y'all don't star at a diesel barbecue. (Hint: diesel is hard to light and does not burn the way it was depicted in the movie...)

-- Any austere or remote facility should have emergency procedures AND TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT for firefighting, _especially_ if the local fire brigade is not up to stuff, is not responding, or prefers bullet avoidance. Or all three. A single set of SCBA gear might have saved the Ambassador's life.

A last word on command and control. The armed forces used to literally try, convict and execute commanding officers who so failed in their basic obligations as to display cowardice, a lack of control over their own personnel, or lose lives needlessly as the result of failure to take basic measures.

The CIA station chief may have been decorated for his actions, but his inability to control his own employees is a real, serious issue that had many other consequences. His failure to take the most basic measures to protect the lives of his own personnel is execrable. I will let "Bob" (a former Army medic who didn't provide any medical care that day either) speak for himself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-chief-in-benghazi-challenges-film-version-of-2012-attack/2016/01/15/9cf2defc-baf7-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

Now, "Bob," you are responsible for the lives of your personnel. You were the senior representative of the US government in a dangerous outpost. You fucked up hard core, real bad -- if not for the reasons shown in the movie -- by failing to provide for basic essentials to keep your people alive. EVERYBODY in a conflict zone builds shelters! EVERYBODY figures out how to turn off and on the lights! EVERYBODY knows who is in charge and follows instructions since they don't want to star in a 15 second segment on CNN.