Benghazi…Obama’s Midway?

By 20 Comments 1,634 views

benghazi-on-fire

Richard Fernandez has an excellent post up that must be read in it’s entirety.  In it he compares two regimes and two battles and how the results of those battles marked the downward spiral of that regime.

First he describes the battle of Midway:

Almost nobody in Japan heard about the Battle of Midway until after the war. The Emperor Hirohito, upon hearing of the debacle ordered a comprehensive cover-up. The wounded were isolated on hospital ships. All mail was censored. Surviving enlisted men and officers were held incommunicado until they could be shipped off to distant battlefields from where it was hoped they would never return. The sunken ships themselves were gradually written off over the course of the war until their loss blended in with the general demise of the imperial fleet. In order to coordinate this effort Hirohito created a special office of cabinet rank.

It worked perfectly. If the US had not won World War 2 Midway would never have existed in Japanese history.

…But the loss was worse than four carriers sunk. Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully in their classic account of Midway, The Shattered Sword, argued that the battle broke the Japanese empire in a fundamental way. It was the consequences of denial that really finished the Japanese military.

And then he described the battle at Benghazi:

The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

Worse was to follow. America’s premier intelligence organization, the National Security Agency, was taken apart in public and the man who took its secrets, Edward Snowden, decamped to Moscow with a laptop full of secrets. But it was all just a curtain raiser to the dismemberment of Ukraine and the disaster in Eastern Europe.

The Ukraine has now been effectively partitioned. The Obama administration talk about inflicting “consequences” and “costs” on Russia turned out to be empty. Almost as if to add insult to injury, Iran has declared victory in Syria over Obama. “‘We have won in Syria,’ said Alaeddin Borujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee and an influential government insider. ‘The regime will stay. The Americans have lost it.’”

And still there’s no acknowledgement of anything being fundamentally wrong.

Denial.

Deny deny deny and deny some more.

Obama does it. Hillary does it. The whole Administration does it as well as our ‘fantastic’ media. Hell, one media talking head was at it just this morning saying the VA scandal is a bigger issue than Benghazi:

More Republicans and Democrats are expressing concerns over Shinseki’s leadership. And it’s this bipartisan outrage that’s the reason why this VA issue and scandal is a much story right now frankly than the investigation in Benghazi.

…It’s the outrage from both sides of the aisle coupled with the competency issue of the Obama administration that they were facing since the health care website debacle that could be actually a real political problem for this presidency and perhaps for Democrats moving forward. But this one has legs and it’s very dangerous for the White House much more so frankly than the partisanized Benghazi.

Another media idiot denyed that Stevens was murdered at all.

Fernandez:

Benghazi had its roots in an alternative theory of foreign policy formed in Obama’s team at around the time of the Surge in Iraq. From that experience, Obama’s advisers persuaded him that it would be possible to “turn” America’s enemies by taking control of them instead of fighting them. It was a dazzling prospect which offered victory on the cheap.

It was to be built on three pillars: covert action, targeted assassinations and diplomacy. The idea was simple, instead of relying on the regular military, the Obama administration would take over the most dangerous jihadi groups through intelligence agencies. Through this mechanism they would become their patrons and cement the relationship with diplomatic deals with their Gulf funders. Drones and hunter killer squads would be employed to promote chosen intelligence assets — American agents — to positions of responsbility in the terror cells. The drones would clear the way for designated jihadis to rise within the ranks. Eventually America would own the jihad and neuter it from within.

America would out ISI the ISI.

But of course there had to be a genuine political component as well. A bone needed to be thrown to genuine Muslim aspirations. Why not give the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and hand over Syria to al-Qaeda? And why not use American diplomatic muscle to force a deal between Palestine and Israel. That way al-Qaeda could have their own countries and presumably be satisfied with that.

This scheme has a certain superficial attractiveness. It sounds wildly daring, incredibly smart and its formulators must have felt like Cortez on a Peak in Darien. “Boy are we cool to have thought of this.”

There is only one problem with this scenario. It could never be sold to a public who had given their sons to fighting the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could never be peddled to crusty old guys who’d see it as a crazy-ass scheme. The solution to meeting the objections was simple. Don’t tell anyone and conduct a secret foreign and counter-terrorist policy, which when it succeeded could be unveiled as proof of Obama’s genius.

But what happens when they are double crossed, as they were in Benghazi? Can they do the right thing, admit mistakes, admit the failure of the policy? No, because Obama could do no wrong.

That setback, by itself, was not necessarily a bad thing. Commanders in Chief can make mistakes so why couldn’t Hillary and Obama just admit they had this theory but it didn’t work in practice and just learn from it?

Because they had pursued the policy secretly and possibly illegally. Because of 2012. Because like Hirohito, Obama could do no wrong, so there was nothing but to protect the Throne of Heaven from the accusation of fallibility and the guilt of cover-up. So they lied.

Bush, when told that the fighting in Iraq had turned against them admitted that their strategy was wrong and embraced a new strategy, the surge. He and his Commanders had to admit their mistakes first, learn from them and adapt.

But not Obama. Not Hillary.

If they had just admitted that their strategy was flawed, that they made mistakes, and that they were going to adapt to the battlefield none of the ensuing turmoil would of happened.

But they couldn’t and now the noose tightens.

Exit quote:

Suppose Benghazi was a catastrophic failure, made all the more dangerous by the possibility that Russia had a hand in it. If Putin, having studied how Reagan used the Jihad to bring down Soviet Union, played the same game on Barack Hussein Obama, it would explain many otherwise inexplicable things. The role of Snowden. The disgrace of Petraeus. The exile of anyone and anything to do with Benghazi. The kid-gloves treatment of the Ansar attackers. The strange enmity between Hillary and Obama. Each is bound by the same secret. Each lives in fear of the same smoldering fire burning in the bowels of the administration.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

20 Responses to “Benghazi…Obama’s Midway?”

  1. 1

    mathman

    It should be called “The Battle off Midway” since the fighting took place in the open ocean.
    1) All American ships were not docked at Pearl Harbor. The Carriers were on an exercise.
    2) The Japanese naval code had been partially broken; there was a strong hint that the fleet could be found near Midway.
    3) It was Japanese dogma that carriers could not be sunk by aircraft. There was apparently no Jimmy Doolittle in Japan.
    4) The incoming aircraft were detected by radar; unfortunately the planes were confounded with a sea plane en route from San Francisco, the radar was turned off, and no report was made.
    5) Our pants were down. No one was on watch. No aircraft were on patrol. We were at peace.
    6) The war warning was not sent by telegraph; it was put in an envelope to be shipped on the next Monday.
    7) The Japanese embassy in DC was already burning its files.
    8) Bombing Pearl Harbor was the graduation exercise in the Commander School in Japan for several years.
    The battle was a near thing, as our vintage Torpedo 8 wing disappeared without a trace.
    So of course the Japanese people were not told. The invincible fleet was at the bottom of the ocean.
    Just as our Foreign Policy is now at the bottom of the ocean (metaphorically speaking). We got our butts kicked, good and proper.

  2. 2

    Redteam

    The most important thing that has to happen in a major defeat is to recognize that you have been defeated. That’s an event that Obama is not prepared to do.

  3. 3

    Redteam

    @mathman:

    It should be called “The Battle off Midway” since the fighting took place in the open ocean.

    I don’t understand your point. Do you think they bombed “pearl Harbor” ? Maybe they thought Pearl Harbor was gonna flow to Japan and cause a problem, or maybe they actually bombed the military targets around Pearl Harbor. The actual name is “Battle of Midway”, maybe because it was midway across the ocean.

  4. 4

    john

    this was the same site that predicted Obama as a one term POTUS. Obama’s job approval is the highest since last Oct, this after Obamacare and Benghazi !! According to Gallup about 17% of those who DISAP
    PROVE of Obama do so because he is not liberal enough.
    His current polling numbers are about twice that of Bush when he left.
    Why would anyone think that the 14th commission on BENGHAZI!!! would be of anymore interest than the previous hearings ? Is it because their is no more OUTRAGE!! over Obamacare, that the death panels have never appeared?

  5. 5

    MAKAYA

    Mathman
    You appear to be mixing up Pearl Harbor with Midway.
    #1 Pearl Harbor
    #2 Midway (code AF)
    #3 You mean Billy Mitchell. And the Japanese were perfectly aware of the vulnerability of all ships to aerial assault; their teams had closely studied the Taranto raid.
    #4 Pearl Harbor. The arriving planes were B-17s, not a seaplane. The report was given, but it was dismissed.
    #5 Pearl Harbor. Yes, we were caught pants down. But there were air patrols. Just not enough and in the wrong sectors.
    #6 Pearl Harbor. The warning was never sent by envelope, it went out over a private company line with no mark for urgency.
    #7 Pearl Harbor. Yep.
    #8 Pearl Harbor. Can’t comment: don’t know.
    However, you then go back to Midway, referring to VT-8. First off, it was a squadron, not a wing. Secondly, there was a survivor, George Gay. They didn’t disappear without a trace. Their destruction in combat is well documented from both sides.
    We got out butts kicked at Pearl Harbor, not at Midway.

  6. 6

    MAKAYA

    Redteam:

    The battle of Midway was fought off the Island of Midway, so named because it’s, well, midway across the big water, namely between the continental US and the Philippines, then a US commonwealth.

    There is some justification for Battle off Midway. The northern action of the Battle of Leyte Gulf is referred to as the Battle OFF Cape Engano. Still, the name remains Battle OF Midway.

  7. 7

    MAKAYA

    John

    Thank you for the rhetorical questions.

    Do you suggest that democrats run on the success of Obama’s foreign policy in the Arab world?

    We all know that ObabamaCare is a shining success. After all, anyone who says it is hurting them is a liar. Ask Harry Reid.

  8. 8

    ThunderGod

    @john, I’d be willing you were pissed-off when Ollie North pulled his immunity stunt during the hyper-partisan Iran-Contra hearings, weren’t you? If you’re old enough, that is.

  9. 10

    Nanny G

    “Proof of Obama’s genius:”
    Benghazi had its roots in an alternative theory of foreign policy formed in Obama’s team at around the time of the Surge in Iraq. From that experience, Obama’s advisers persuaded him that it would be possible to “turn” America’s enemies by taking control of them instead of fighting them. It was a dazzling prospect which offered victory on the cheap.

    It was to be built on three pillars: covert action, targeted assassinations and diplomacy. The idea was simple, instead of relying on the regular military, the Obama administration would take over the most dangerous jihadi groups through intelligence agencies. Through this mechanism they would become their patrons and cement the relationship with diplomatic deals with their Gulf funders. Drones and hunter killer squads would be employed to promote chosen intelligence assets — American agents — to positions of responsbility in the terror cells. The drones would clear the way for designated jihadis to rise within the ranks. Eventually America would own the jihad and neuter it from within.

    You know, I realize Richard F. is only theorizing, but his theory fits the facts we saw on the ground.
    How often was Obama apologizing to Islam on one hand while droning dead an Islamist terror leader on the ground on the other hand?
    Lots of the time.
    Designated terrorists were allowed to thrive: Muslim Brotherhood, Ansar al Shariah, Taliban (secret meetings) Iranians (secret mettings).
    But other Muslims were allowed to be destroyed: Secular Egyptians, Liberal Saudi Bloggers, Secular Iraqis, Secular Iranians.
    Now, was Obama intending to take over the earth for Sharia as his undercover terrorist jihadis would have had to inside his approved groups?
    Or, did he really ignorantly believe those groups could get power in one corner of earth then they’d just stop trying for more?
    Look at Africa.
    Islam used to be confined to north of the Sahara Desert.
    Not anymore.
    Islam has been moving slowly SOUTH through Africa.
    The goal stays the same: Islamic dominance over earth.
    If black-skinned Africans need to die, so be it.
    If they can be raped into a next-generation of lighter-skinned variation of slaves and converts, even better.

  10. 11

    Redteam

    @john:

    Obama’s job approval is the highest since last Oct,

    So you’re saying he has been in the tank since Oct and has now moved up .1 so that establishes a notch above his historical low? Sounds like you’re trying to spray perfume on a pile of manure.

  11. 12

    Redteam

    @MAKAYA:

    There is some justification for Battle off Midway.

    My point was it is silly to talk about the name of a Battle. Do you think the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in the city of Gettysburg or just in the vicinity? I don’t think I’ve heard of any battle being name the Battle AT ……… anywhere.

  12. 13

    Buffalobob

    The looser and chief and Hillary can count on the likes of Lanny Davis to stalk the halls during the hearings to ensure the truth (snicker) gets told.

  13. 14

    MAKAYA

    Redteam

    Good enough, but you have to name them something. (Well not necessarily. In WWI Italy versus Austro-Hungary the battles for the Isonzo were numbered the 1st through 12th [!].)

  14. 16

    FAITH7

    @#4/John

    Why would anyone think that the 14th commission on BENGHAZI!!! would be of anymore interest than the previous hearings ?

    Your (this) statement sounds rather cold and callous…. Do you have ANY empathy for 4 dead – fellow Americans?How they died? Their calls for the help that never came? How about their families and friends?

    After it became painfully clear their murders were NOT the result of a “Video” …a lie spewed over and over and over again….by YOUR President on a World Stage and spewed by the State Department…..

    …I suspect you have no problem with your Government lying to you? Yes?

    I would like to ask the question would you feel the same way had any one of these Americans been your Brother, Father, Uncle, Friend… would you feel the same way about getting to the truth or accepting a lie? Had any one of thes Americans been a Brother, Father, Uncle, Friend would you not want to get to the truth? Or give your Government a pass on their horrific deaths?

    Somehow, and judging from your earlier statement, I suspect the answer would be you really don’t care so long as your guy Ofraud and Hillary both come out squeaky clean… cause after all, with 4 fellow Americans Murdered..what difference (at this point) does it make??

    Move along…nothing to see here…right John??

  15. 17

    Smorgasbord

    @john: #4

    this was the same site that predicted Obama as a one term POTUS.

    If the voting machines that turned a Romney vote into an obama vote worked the way they should have, and if the poll watchers hadn’t been FORCIBLY removed in several voting districts, the election would have gone the other way. Let’s not forget about the districts who had a 98%, 99%,100%, and even 108% of the eligible voters who voted for obama. If a republican would have gotten percentages like that, you liberals, and the propaganda media would have jumped all over it. What would the vote count be like if voters had to show an ID to vote?

    Should a person be allowed to vote ONLY ONCE? If you agree that they should, then how would you suggest it be done. No liberal has come up with a way: Only ways to NOT keep people from voting more than once.

  16. 18

    Smorgasbord

    What if all that is going on (or not going on) is part of a plan, and obama is part of that plan? The more I see what is going on around the would, and the more I see our president not doing anything about certain events, the more fearful I am that different countries have gotten together to bring down the USA, and that obama is a part of it.

    One thing I don’t understand about the NSA scandal is how does someone with the rank or PFC have access to that kind if info. A PFC has only one stripe (Private First Class) on their shoulders. Military ranking starts with #1, and a PFC is only #3.

    How does Eleanor Clift know how Ambassador Stevens died? Was she given information that even his family wasn’t given?

  17. 19

    enchanted

    @john: Perhaps it isn’t called a death panel, but the verbiage is in the law. The law states that after a certain age and at the time the age wasn’t defined (based on how screwed up the law is, they probably haven’t determined an age yet), people would be seen to determine their health status. If you are in ill health you will be advised whether it is better for you to take a pain pill or to end your life. This is every five years. if you have a congenital or terminal illness or are elderly you will be seen more often. This is a way to purge the species. The more ill people that are taken off the grid (e.g., die) the less the burden is placed on health care.

    Why do you think it was so important to place abortion in the bill. I don’t remember the democrat congressman who made the statement on the house floor (it is on youtube) but he stated that abortion had to be in the bill (before it was passed) because babies being born placed a burden on the health care system. lovely.

    It has already started. If you need a knee or hip replacement it has now been deemed a luxury/cosmetic surgery and you just might not get it.

    Regardless obamacare has nothing to do with health care. it is all about control of the people. In saul alinsky’s eight rules to a socialist state, the number one rule which is touted as the most important is to gain control of the health care system and then the people will be able to be controlled and maintained. It is all about obtaining the socialist state.

    As far as Benghazi. When people state it doesn’t matter I ask them, “What if it were one of your family that was left to die?”

  18. 20

    ilovebeeswarzone

    WITHOUT THE CORRUPTION AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS,
    he would have lost two third of the ELECTORAT, and
    not counting the dead zombies, NAMED IN OBAMA’s book,
    who, where the first one, to rise up to vote,
    and the 400 unions guys who from what they assure OBAMA,
    did their best,and worked hard at it, so well,that some places had 180% of votes for OBAMA,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *