Benghazi question

[okietool]

May one of you guys or gals will know.
Would anyone paint a target with a laser unless something was supposed to be on hand to destroy the target? I mean would something be in place before the guy on the ground painted the target? Or is it paint the target then something is supposed to show up?
The target knows it is being painted, correct?
Is it possible someone would paint a target as a diversion, knowing he was pretty much out there alone?

 

[Parks 788]

I listen to Rush all the time (go ahead and flame me) Amd he was talking about this earlier this week. No military experience here but it seems like your logic is correct. Wouldn't you give up your position by painting your target? If so, one only paint their target if firepower was near by or above your head. If the fallen solider in Bengazi was painting the mortar positions in Bangazi then someone really high up the food chain purposely denied permission to fire on the painted target.

 

[Glocktogo]

"Anyone" might, but a Highly trained Navy SEAL would not. That's the $64,000 question that none of the administration apologists have an answer for. I have an answer. If they had a valid and documentable answer, they'd be doing a hell of a lot more to answer the question than offering carefully parsed denials and weak protestations of "This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight." If they had the goods, they'd be tripping over themselves to offer it up like they did on Bin Laden. They don't.

 

[O4L]

What I heard one of the talking heads say was that they were expecting air support that never came.

 

[Glocktogo]

What I heard one of the talking heads say was that they were expecting air support that never came.

Which is why we haven't heard from General Ham or anyone else directly involved in the process, because they would either tell the truth (bad for Obama) or lie (bad for them later on). Panetta is a snake and I trust him about as far as I can throw the Pentagon.

 

[yukonjack]

They painted the target because they were desperate. They knew they were out of options and about out of time. Just trying to hold on to hope that help would come. If I was in the situation they were in that's what I'd do. You know that at any minute you could be taken out. It would be better to paint the target while you were still physically able to then risk losing that chance.

 

[Glocktogo]

They painted the target because they were desperate. They knew they were out of options and about out of time. Just trying to hold on to hope that help would come. If I was in the situation they were in that's what I'd do. You know that at any minute you could be taken out. It would be better to paint the target while you were still physically able to then risk losing that chance.

Doherty and Woods didn't get hit with the mortar round until nearly 4AM local. That was over 6 hours into the attack and the annex was under attack for 4 hours. Air assets and additional Special Forces were on hand and less than two hours flight time away at Sigonella Air Base in Italy. General Ham was going to get them what they wanted (Spectre Gunship), but was denied by the brass at minimum and possibly the WH itself. That's why Woods was lasing the mortar position. He wasn't hoping for a Spectre, he was EXPECTING one!

Panetta's pansy-assed excuse of “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.” is pathetic. It belies all his years of experience. They had a live feed of the situation and active comms with a highly trained team of SEALs, who were giving them a blow by blow account of the situation. The WH decided to "go small" and cost them their lives for a political gamble. They lost and so did Obama and whomever advised him to not use military intervention (most likely Panetta).

The fact is that while a Spectre gunship strike is incredibly precise, the resulting carnage is incredibly messy. The WH opted for a kinder, gentler approach. See where that got us? I'm betting that before this is all through, we're going to discover some very shady dealings on the ground in Lybia between our "representatives" and the people dealing in weapons. Iran-Contra type shady. There's a long game here we're not seeing yet. This is the proverbial peek under the curtains. The final reveal may not be for another 25 years or so.

 

[SMS]

May one of you guys or gals will know.
Would anyone paint a target with a laser unless something was supposed to be on hand to destroy the target? I mean would something be in place before the guy on the ground painted the target? Or is it paint the target then something is supposed to show up?
The target knows it is being painted, correct?

There are other reasons to paint a target other than for targeting. There is a technique called sparkling, wherein one points an IR laser or flood at a specific or general area for the purposes of allowing other assets, like UAVs, to identify a location and help give situational awareness to the guys on the ground.
For instance if the guys at the CIA compound had a general idea where enemy fire was coming from, they could use IR to point out a general area and the sensor operator for a UAV could help identify more specifics. On the flip side, the guys on the ground might be blind, but the UAV bubbas see exactly where the enemy is and then use the UAV's IR to highlight the area for the ground guys. There was a UAV overhead that night.

Unless the enemy is using night vision, all of that goes on unseen to them.

 

[MLRyan]

We use infrared lasers now. You can't see them with the naked eye, only with light filters/NVGs.

 

[dennishoddy]

Sounds like they must have had night vision? Did we give this to them along with the SFM's?