Navy SEALS do their job to the bitter end, even when it’s not actually their job

I wonder whether any branch of the military has lost a larger proportion of people than the Navy SEAL in the years since 9/11.  Certainly they’ve done their bit and more to fight for American freedoms.  We now learn that, in Benghazi, former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, gave their lives to try to Ambassador Stevens even though they were not at the embassy in any official capacity:

The two former SEALS,  Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, were not employed by the State Department diplomatic security office and instead were what is known as personal service contractors who had other duties related to security, the officials said.

They stepped into action, however, when Stevens became separated from the small security detail normally assigned to protect him when he traveled from the more fortified embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, the officials said.

The two ex-Seals and others engaged in a lengthy firefight with the extremists who attacked the compound, a fight that stretched from the inner area of the consulate to an outside annex and a nearby safe house — a location that the insurgents appeared to know about, the officials said.

The officials provided the information to the Washington Guardian, saying they feared the Obama administration’s scant description of the episode left a misimpression that the two ex-Navy SEALs might have been responsible for the ambassador’s personal safety or become separated from him.

Woods and Doherty were unable to save either Stevens or themselves.  Of course, if they haven’t fought, there’s no telling how many more Americans might have died.  It turns out that the State Department was so determined to keep a low profile in Benghazi (despite advance warning of a terrorist attack), that it hired a British security firm that happily complied with the State Department’s “no weapons” rule.  Here’s a question I wonder if anyone has asked:  If Woods and Doherty hadn’t picked up weapons and given their lives, how many of those British security people would have died along with the Americans?

Meanwhile, while American embassies burn (and Israel stares down another Holocaust), Obama fiddles and diddles away his time in Vegas, on Letterman, partying with Beyonce, and talking with pirates.  Feckless is too nice a word for him, and I’m too much of a lady to use the ones that apply.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Jose

    Security without weapons in post revolutionary Libya.  How brilliant! 
     
    Brought to you by the same State Department pushing for the UN Small Weapons treaty.  No doubt that would have eliminated all those nasty RPGs and assault rifles being used by the “mob”.
     
    Seriously, the government weighs the pros and cons, and frequently finds that people are expendable.  If you’ve ever been in a combat zone without a weapon (I have) you quickly understand how little your existence means little to those in authority.  Someone, at some level, made a deliberate decision to risk  letting those people be killed.
     
    Now substitute Chicago for a combat zone, and understand that the individual, even a citizen in their home, still has no value to the government.  Who are you going to depend on for your well being?

  • Libby

    What is the point of security without weapons? Even anti-gun politicians and celebrities hire armed security for their own safety.
    This is on par with having our Border Patrol agents being told to use bean-bag guns against AK-47- toting Mexican drug smugglers, or the more restrictive rules of engagement for our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan. I am completely disgusted at the White House’s complete disregard for the safety of the brave souls who have pledged to protect America from her enemies. They’ve been sent out like lambs to the slaughter.

  • Jose

    Letterman remarked on how grown-up Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, looked at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this month.
     
    “Does that kill you?” Letterman asked.
     
    “It worries me, but they’re surrounded by men with guns,” Obama replied.
     
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-there-s-more-enough-blame-spread-around_652671.html
    h/t Maggie’s Farm

  • BigFire

    Actually, the British security firm hired local Libyans to be security guard without bullets in guns.  So that’s the level of security that State Department believed to be sufficient.

  • Texan99

    What have you been able to find out, if anything, about how the two SEALs came to be armed?  Did they use their own weapons (i.e, were there at least some personnel present who were permitted to be armed)?  Did they somehow get their hands on weapons of some of the terrorists?