BLReed
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,676
Right on. It is funny in a way that anyone would even consider either of those sources.
At least I got a chuckle.
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Military Workshop
- Start date
At least I got a chuckle.
theBaron
Major
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 10,308
All good, unbiased, objective media outlets with no agendas of their own.
And regarding the conviction, what does that have to do with the arguments D'Souza makes in his books and movies?
Sorry, you get no points for any of these.
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
Saw it and highly recommend.
Good gritty movie based on what happened on the ground. Apart from The Office actor (Krazinski) the main actor I recognised was one of the guys from The Unit.
One of the contractors had a good line about it being the 2012 Alamo. Lucky for him not as bad as the Alamo.
No mention of the politics at all although you can not help but be frustrated after they came under heavy attack and 30 + lives on the line and no serious backup. Not sure of the details why but cant understand why did not have some fighter jets fly over as was requested.
Well worth the admission.
Good gritty movie based on what happened on the ground. Apart from The Office actor (Krazinski) the main actor I recognised was one of the guys from The Unit.
One of the contractors had a good line about it being the 2012 Alamo. Lucky for him not as bad as the Alamo.
No mention of the politics at all although you can not help but be frustrated after they came under heavy attack and 30 + lives on the line and no serious backup. Not sure of the details why but cant understand why did not have some fighter jets fly over as was requested.
Well worth the admission.
TomNT
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,986
Thanks for the review Brett, i'll definitely go to the flicks on Tuesday and see it.
Tom
nysoldiers
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,372
I have a relative who served in the US diplomatic corp. for almost 40 years. While he retired several years ago he still keeps in touch with many of his co-workers.
He recently saw the movie and I asked him for his opinion. I consider him very "conservative" but he has both praised and criticized Democrat and Republican policies.
He thought that the movie had merit but he could not endorse it. One comment he made really stood out for me......."within all the administrations I worked for there was
one consistency, that truth and politics don't mix well."
Take it for what its worth.....
He recently saw the movie and I asked him for his opinion. I consider him very "conservative" but he has both praised and criticized Democrat and Republican policies.
He thought that the movie had merit but he could not endorse it. One comment he made really stood out for me......."within all the administrations I worked for there was
one consistency, that truth and politics don't mix well."
Take it for what its worth.....
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
Your relatives comment is no doubt true in a generic sense but don't see how it relates to the actual events depicted in this movie. No political stuff is mentioned and there are no scenes involving political higher ups in the command chain. All we can see is that nothing much is being done to help them and this seems to be a fact rather than anything political.
What the movie does show is the available resources in troops and aircraft in the Med and nearby European countries, none of whom were apparently deployed. An example of something wrong with the system and command structure that no quick response apart from the Predator. Whilst the guys on the ground did a magnificent job the lack of a back up response is what strikes me as inexplicable.
Perhaps if they were not CIA guys (ie. the second compound) but an actual military unit or State Department the response might have been a bit better. If anybody can point me in the direction of a report or inquiry about that aspect I would be interested to learn a bit more.
Since the great majority of the participants in the actual event, on the ground, are alive one would assume it is a fairly accurate depiction of what happened. As I understand it the contentious part is the role of the CIA chief and if he told the six contractors to stand down. He has refuted this but apparently there is footage of the guys trying to board their vehicles over a 25 minute period and being held up by him.
It does raise an interesting question. You are the Commander of the Med Fleet or the Aircraft carrier and know what is going on. You know 30 + Americans are possibly about to be overrun and killed. You could deploy a couple of jets as a show of force. Meanwhile State, White House, Defence, CIA etc are calling each other trying to work out what to do.
Great win for the guys on the ground but not so good from the system above them.
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
Been doing a bit of Googling and reading in relation to the military response. Lots out there but not found the definitive report yet as seems to be a few investigations and also plenty of news stories on this aspect.
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
With apologies to American forum members who I can understand probably read enough on the subject since it happened.
Spent a few hours looking around and some pages of interest (probably more so to non American forum members).
The CIA chief does not come out of the movie that well. He was however awarded a medal for his actions. Below is an article with his recent comments. He particularly disputes the last scene with him in the movie (did not sit well with me when I saw it).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f-2012-attack/2016/01/15/9cf2defc-baf7-11e5-b
General Carter Ham i/c Africa evidence regarding his thoughts on air cover (page 46). Last para of page 76 also interesting. Below link is to his testimony (3rd time). Did find a page that suggested he was removed from his command, by his No 2, on the night because he wanted to take immeadiate action. Since he was at the Pentagon with other Chiefs at the time that seemed a little ridiculous.
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424
These comments stood out from articles I read :
Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell was at Africa Command at the time of the attack. Lovell was deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command.
Lovell did not question the Pentagon claim that it could not have scrambled forces in the region quickly enough to have prevented the deaths of the Americans. Lovell said no one at the time of the attack knew how long it would go, so they could not have determined then that there was no use in trying.
"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.
While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do," but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.
There were questions about whether the U.S. military could have responded to Benghazi in time, but "we should have tried," Lovell said.
Source :
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/01/benghazi-testimony-africom-general/8554559/
This article below has a recent quote from Kris “Tanto” Paronto (one of the six contractors and in the movie shown requesting the gunship). He mentions
"One of them was a six-hour flight away, co-located with a U.S. special operations team in Djibouti.
The other was at Naval Air Station Sigonella, in Sicily. “That’s a 45-minute flight,”. He also mentions a SF team being put on standby bur being stood down.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261...-stand-down-order-exposed-kenneth-r-timmerman
This link is interesting as it refers to points of disagreement by the contractors with the Intelligence Committee report
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...acies-with-firsthand-account-from-the-ground/
Full Intelligence Committe report here :
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf
There is a lot more and other Committee reports but above just a few I found interesting for different perspectives.
Spent a few hours looking around and some pages of interest (probably more so to non American forum members).
The CIA chief does not come out of the movie that well. He was however awarded a medal for his actions. Below is an article with his recent comments. He particularly disputes the last scene with him in the movie (did not sit well with me when I saw it).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f-2012-attack/2016/01/15/9cf2defc-baf7-11e5-b
General Carter Ham i/c Africa evidence regarding his thoughts on air cover (page 46). Last para of page 76 also interesting. Below link is to his testimony (3rd time). Did find a page that suggested he was removed from his command, by his No 2, on the night because he wanted to take immeadiate action. Since he was at the Pentagon with other Chiefs at the time that seemed a little ridiculous.
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424
These comments stood out from articles I read :
Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell was at Africa Command at the time of the attack. Lovell was deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command.
Lovell did not question the Pentagon claim that it could not have scrambled forces in the region quickly enough to have prevented the deaths of the Americans. Lovell said no one at the time of the attack knew how long it would go, so they could not have determined then that there was no use in trying.
"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.
While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do," but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.
There were questions about whether the U.S. military could have responded to Benghazi in time, but "we should have tried," Lovell said.
Source :
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/01/benghazi-testimony-africom-general/8554559/
This article below has a recent quote from Kris “Tanto” Paronto (one of the six contractors and in the movie shown requesting the gunship). He mentions
"One of them was a six-hour flight away, co-located with a U.S. special operations team in Djibouti.
The other was at Naval Air Station Sigonella, in Sicily. “That’s a 45-minute flight,”. He also mentions a SF team being put on standby bur being stood down.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261...-stand-down-order-exposed-kenneth-r-timmerman
This link is interesting as it refers to points of disagreement by the contractors with the Intelligence Committee report
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...acies-with-firsthand-account-from-the-ground/
Full Intelligence Committe report here :
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf
There is a lot more and other Committee reports but above just a few I found interesting for different perspectives.
King & Country
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- Messages
- 4,932
Hi Guys,
Like some of you I saw this movie a few days back. Also like you I appreciated the skills and talents of all involved who made the picture... and more importantly, the bravery of the real GRS guys on the ground who did their level best to remedy a terrible and horrific situation.
I came away from the movie with a couple of troubling thoughts...and questions.
1. “How come the most expensive, the most modern and the most capable military on the planet did virtually nothing to remedy a bad situation... ?
2. “Why did the U.S. government persist in saying that this incident was the result of a violent demonstration about a crazy video film... ?
Probably you guys could ask a lot more questions than that... but I will leave that up to you.
Best wishes and Happy Collecting!
Like some of you I saw this movie a few days back. Also like you I appreciated the skills and talents of all involved who made the picture... and more importantly, the bravery of the real GRS guys on the ground who did their level best to remedy a terrible and horrific situation.
I came away from the movie with a couple of troubling thoughts...and questions.
1. “How come the most expensive, the most modern and the most capable military on the planet did virtually nothing to remedy a bad situation... ?
2. “Why did the U.S. government persist in saying that this incident was the result of a violent demonstration about a crazy video film... ?
Probably you guys could ask a lot more questions than that... but I will leave that up to you.
Best wishes and Happy Collecting!
Andy
nysoldiers
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,372
As "amateur" historians most of us are aware of mistakes, terrible decisions and downright incompetence exhibited during the "fog of war". In the modern era we can also add "political motivation" to that list. As honesty and politics rarely go together we will probably never know the whole truth.
I don't believe that any of the US agencies wanted to see the four brave victims killed but certainly there are some who are complicit in this tragedy and explanation.
Very similar to events in 1967 when Israeli aircraft and boats attacked the USS Liberty, a SIGINT vessel in international waters off the coast of Sinai. The fleet Admiral scrambled fighters to go to her aid, but the Whitehouse ordered him to recall them. 34 of our sailors were killed and 170 odd wounded. There was an abbreviated(!) Naval Court of inquiry, and that was it.