The Obama Doctrine: American Lives Are Expendable

The Obama Doctrine: American Lives Are Expendable
By Karin McQuillan
americanthinker.com


The Obama White House, the Clinton State Department, and Panetta's
Department of Defense have guiding principles in Afghanistan that, if
applied to Benghazi, explain the administration's decision to deny air
support to the Americans fighting for their lives on 9/11/12.

The denial of air support to our troops in battle is normal operating
procedure for this commander in chief. He doesn't have to give
special orders to do it. It is the Obama Doctrine on the War on
Terror: do not kill Muslim civilians. Let American soldiers die
instead. That is how Obama thinks he will win the hearts and minds of
the Islamic world.

In Afghanistan, the military is required to deny air support, even in
the midst of battle, if it could possibly result in civilian
casualties. Under Obama, it is required that the military sacrifice
the lives of our soldiers when jihadis are firing from population
areas. The Benghazi safe house where Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and
the others were defending themselves against al-Qaeda was in a
neighborhood. Therefore, if the Afghanistan rules of engagement were
applied, no air support and no reinforcements would be sent.

Following the same mindset, the Clinton State Department's main
diplomatic principle is to show how much we respect Muslim
sensibilities. Ambassador Stevens' repeated requests to not withdraw
his U.S. Marine security detail were denied by the State Department on
those grounds. Just a few weeks before 9/11, Stevens was reduced to
relying on local Libyan militia for his safety and the safety of his
staff. He was scared for his life, and on 9/11, he gave his life. He
was sacrificed to the Obama administration's diplomatic doctrine.

Testimony from Eric Allan Nordstrom, Regional Security Officer,
Tripoli, at Congressman Issa's hearings into Benghazi:


Our long term security plan in Libya was to recruit and deploy an
armed, locally hired Libyan bodyguard unit. However, because of Libyan
political sensitivities, armed private security companies were not
allowed to operate in Libya. Therefore, our existing, uniformed static
local guard force, both in Tripoli and Benghazi were unarmed ... armed
security in Libya was still a new and sensitive concept to the Libyan
Government. Abuses of Qaddafi foreign mercenaries were still fresh in
the minds of the Libya people.

Under the Obama administration, the lives and safety of American
diplomats and military personnel come third after respecting Muslim
lives and sensibilities. This is the Obama idea of how to win what
his predecessor called the War on Terror.

Benghazi, September 11, 2012: The White House is alerted at 1:00 in
the afternoon that the consulate is under hostile surveillance, and at
4:00 p.m. that the consulate is under attack. According to FBI and
National Counterterrorism Center briefings to Congress, our
intelligence services intercept real-time e-mails from Al Qaeda
fighters celebrating their attack.

Our military is instructed to send an unarmed drone to monitor the
battle raging in Benghazi.

From all reports, it seems that President Obama chose not to go to the
Situation Room in the White House to monitor the battle as it was
streamed on live video from two sources: the consulate building and
the drone. He didn't follow the radioed messages for help as they
arrived in real time.



This is how Obama described his actions on 9/11, during the second
presidential debate:


I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more
concerned about their safety and security than I am. So as soon as we
found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the
phone with my national security team, and I gave them three
instructions. Number one, beef up our security and - and - and
procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the
region.

Obama here says he immediately made a phone call to "beef up our
security and procedures [at] every embassy in the [Middle East]." The
president does not say he gave orders to send reinforcements during
the battle in Benghazi.

At 5:00 p.m., reports say the president held a previously scheduled
meeting in the Oval Office with his political hack and "national
security advisor" Tom Donilon, Secretary of Defense Panetta, and Vice
President Biden.

That is all we hear of Obama's involvement. Obama had to be up in the
morning for a Las Vegas fundraiser. He tells us he was not involved
at 4:00 a.m., when Tyrone Woods last radioed for help that never came,
and was killed by mortar fire.

Jim Hoft at thegatewaypundit explains the import of Woods painting the
jihadi target with a laser:


The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In
fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex
manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA
compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was
firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre
gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to
provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in
intense firefights. Then there's this bombshell at BlackFive from a
former Delta operator:

... That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A
ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not
"paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which
means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH
situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander
based on information directly from the target area.

President Obama tells us he did not deny requests for help. General
Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM),
says he was never asked to send help. He has since resigned.

Obama made a different claim to a Denver reporter on October 26, when
for the first time he was asked a tough question on Benghazi by the
media:


... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear
directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel
and doing whatever we need to.... I guarantee you that everyone in the
state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one
priority making sure that people were safe.

If President Obama issued such orders, the CIA and Department of
Defense and U.S. Military defied them, since nothing was done to make
sure our people were safe. Our last two warriors died calling for air
support that our military withheld.

We did immediately send an unarmed drone. No air cover. No special
forces. Military assets were pre-positioned in Sicily, which is one
hour away for gunships, two hours for special forces -- the same
distance as Tripoli to Benghazi. No assets were sent to be pre-
positioned in Benghazi in case of immediate need.

It was a seven-hour battle, with 150 men with mortars attacking our
consulate and CIA safe house. There were repeated requests for help.

Help was denied.

How to understand our commander-in-chief's decision not to defend our
ambassador and the thirty other Americans under jihadi attack? Part
of the answer is undoubtedly political, and part is ideological.

My new theory is that a third part of the answer is simply this:
denying air support is what we do under President Obama. The official
American policy is to avert civilian casualties in Muslim countries at
any cost. If it requires the sacrifice our American soldiers' lives,
so be it. Obama finds American lives expendable.

The Obama Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan Require Sacrificing
American Lives

The Obama doctrine in Afghanistan is to sacrifice the lives of
American soldiers in order to never endanger a nearby Afghan even in
the midst of a battle in case he or she might be a civilian. Soldiers
are forbidden to fire in self-defense, under threat of court-martial,
if there is any question that a civilian might be hurt.

Obama's rules of engagement rule out combat air support in Afghanistan
-- just as combat air support was denied in Benghazi. One soldier
currently serving wrote to his father to ask him to write their
congressman to protest new rules of engagement which prohibit "the
dropping of ordinance" (in plain English, air cover).


I don't think that the American citizens would be happy if they knew
that their soldiers were being prohibited from defending themselves in
any way because of politically driven orders, but that is precisely
what is happening in this war right now even as I write this letter.
The soldiers of the U.S. never engage the enemy unless we know that we
have will always have the tactical advantage in defending ourselves,
that advantage is the use of close air support and air weapons team.
To take those weapons away from us is to level the playing field for
the enemy and thus exposing our soldiers to more danger. We have never
been so restricted in defending ourselves as we have now.

I love you very much Dad and I don't want you to worry about me any
more than you already are, but I also know that this has to be brought
up, someone has to say something about this. It is wrong to keep this
hidden away while American soldiers are under constant threat of death
and dying. I don't care if you send this letter directly, this needs
to be known.

Obama loves to boast about killing Osama bin Laden. Three months
after the men of SEAL Team Six killed bin Laden, twenty-two of the
SEALs were themselves killed in a battle in which they were not
allowed air support, for fear of civilian casualties. It was the
greatest military loss in the ten years of war in Afghanistan and in
Navy Special Forces history.

Here is how Billy Vaughn, the father of one of the SEALs killed in
that battle, describes what happened:


Let me just say this. On the night that Extortion 17 was shot down,
this is all from the military -- ... A 3 1/2-hour firefight under way
and our chopper flew in with an AC-130 gunship in the air, two H-64s
and they were not allowed to give any pre-assault fire. They landed
the chopper like it was landing at Wal-Mart even though a firefight
was underway.

When the chopper was shot down, neither were the AC-130 or the two
AH-64s allowed to take out the savages who fired the RPGs because they
were standing on a tower. And under the rules of engagement, they
didn't know if there might be friendlies in the building. These rules
of engagement are criminal for our warriors.

Paul Szoldra, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan puts it this
way: "Strict Rules Of Engagement Are Killing More Americans Than Enemy
In This Lost War."

The deadly effects of Obama's 2010 rules of engagement have gotten
little national press. It is only letters home from the troops, and
the families of dead soldiers, who are complaining.


They say they often can't fight at night, or call in airstrikes,
because of military leaders' fear of doing anything that angers the
Afghan population.

Obama lied to the American public: it was never "number one priority
making sure that [our] people were safe." It is not his priority in
Afghanistan, and it was not his priority in Libya.

Obama's priority in the war on terror is to pretend there is no war
and there is no jihadi threat, and even that there is no terror
(remember the "workplace violence" in Ft. Hood?). His priority is the
opportunity for rapprochement through greater cultural sensitivity and
respect for Islam. Hence, the one decisive action his administration
took after Benghazi was to arrest the man in L.A. who posted the
offensive video on YouTube.

Obama's and Clinton's liberal approach to diplomacy in the Muslim
world is based in the belief that except for a few criminal
individuals, the jihadi forces -- the Taliban, Hamas, Iran, the Muslim
Brotherhood -- are really moderates. As moderates or potential
moderates, they can best be dealt with via cooperation, negotiation,
and even, as in Egypt, throwing out our important ally, Mubarak, and
installing the jihadis in power. The priority is to show all Muslims,
even radical jihadis, understanding and to never do anything to
alienate or offend them. We are trying to make peace with our enemies
because we do not believe they are enemies.

Obama does not place a priority on American lives above the lives of
Muslim citizens in battle zones. That is why he didn't lift a finger
to save the thirty Americans fighting for their lives in Benghazi on
9/11/12.

In Afghanistan, the media and public do not know and do not care. The
whole subject is too depressing to pay attention to. We're getting
out, aren't we? Just a couple more years. Just ignore it.

Obama didn't realize how different Benghazi would be. He was right to
think the politically corrupt mainstream media would accept his
version of events without question, starting with the nonsense that
the Benghazi terror attack was a spontaneous riot caused by an
offensive video. The liberal media is still trying to bury the
Benghazi scandal, to help Obama's re-election chances.

What Obama didn't appreciate is that in Benghazi, he wasn't dealing
with just the silent U.S. military, sworn to uphold his orders and not
complain to the press. In Benghazi, someone -- perhaps CIA, perhaps
State Department civilians -- blew Obama's cover by telling Fox News
reporter Jennifer Griffith that when the battle erupted at 4:00 p.m.
Washington time, the consulate staff's urgent requests for help were
denied, the ambassador abandoned to die.

Obama didn't realize that his passive response to an al-Qaeda attack
and the murder of four Americans on 9/11 wouldn't be ignored as a
"bump in the road" by the new media, also known as the serious news
media today -- Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush and other talk show hosts,
and the conservative internet.

He didn't count on Tyrone Woods's father's powerful indictment of the
most powerful man in America, our president and commander in chief, as
not different from a murderer.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en