Now, considering the embassy had enemy units so close to friendly units that they could physically touch them some would feel that allowing either one of those planes to fire their weapons on a friendly building with friendly units in them? I think the term DANGER CLOSE comes into play here. If there was a special forces unit lasing the target there was no way to know how close the friendly units were. They couldn't talk to one another. Even if they switched to the 25mm cannon the friendly units would be too close to effectively use the weapon. They'd of ended up killing everybody.
What was needed were boots on the ground. They needed to have people for close quarters combat. Using either an AC-130 or a Predator drone would've been considered "over kill" in my book. Yes, it sucks that Americans were killed. Yes, something in the moment should've been done. But using one of these two weapons platforms would not have been the right call. I'm guessing the target was painted in hopes that they were going to be given the green light. But when they considered everything they chose to not risk killing everyone.
Yes, the path they chose to do nothing was the wrong one and they should've had more troops on hand or deployed troops. But I feel lighting up a friendly building with friendlies too close to the enemy using weapons deemed "too large and powerful" would have garnered the same result.
Not true, I just read the Battle for Falujha (spelling) as my nieces husband was in the book, driving one of the Bradleys. In the book they detail repeatedly how the gunships that were ALWAYS overhead at night, could take out insurgents in the yard outside the house the marines were in. The accuracy is unprecedented in anything we have ever deployed. The Seals were killed by mortar rounds and that mortar was not close to the facility. The 130 also could "see" with its night vision system, the insurgents, and would know that anyone outside was not friendly. The Seals knew it was up there and I'll bet anything you like they were in communication with it.
They may haven been able to see the "people" involved but they weren't able to differentiate friend or foe. IF there was someone holding a laser designator and painting the target what exactly was he painting? The building? Who was he seeing? He was probably in direct contact with the AC-130 and the pilots for the drone I can almost bet he couldn't walk the rain in from where he was. The people in the embassy were more than likely not in contact with the gunship or the drone crew. I agree, they are incredibly accurate. But you need to know exactly who you are shooting at. There is a reason why neither were used and I'm willing to be that it's because the threat was not clearly defined. The gun crews didn't know who or where to shoot.
Dropping 120 rounds on the embassy would've leveled the building and killed everyone involved. The 40mm rounds would've killed everyone involved. The 25mm would've probably also killed everyone. Same applies to the drone.
Do I think the direction they took with inaction was the right choice? Nope. But would I think them using an AC-130 or a drone to fix the problem is the right choice? Nope.
Think about this, if there was special forces that close to paint the target don't you think they should've went in there instead? I sure as hell do.
But like Freetown says, it's neither here nor there. Until this email is produced or this is brought out into the open like Petraes' (spelling?) lover I'm gonna just chalk this up to a conspiracy theory.