Gen. Patrick Brady explains why president abandoned Americans in Benghazi

A Dust Off chopper saved my brother’s life in Vietnam. His son and daughter and their sons and daughters would not exist if the Obama-Panetta doctrine had been the order of the day back then. CtH

Medal of Honor recipient Major General Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (Ret.) says,

“My veteran friends are horrified by the Obama-Panetta doctrine. At least 359 retired flag officers support Mitt Romney – only five that I know of support Obama. Some 150 former prisoners of war also support Romney; I know of none who support Obama. America needs to listen to these veterans. They understand leadership. They know how to deal with risk in war. They would not want this man with them in combat or crisis. They never left a needy comrade behind. Obama did.”

Disarmed Forces By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.) – Nov 4, 2012

Now I understand! For years, many veterans and active military have been alarmed about the idiocy of the changes in battlefield aeromedical evacuation known as Dust Off. For reasons having nothing to do with patient care, Dust Off has been removed from the control of the professionals, the medics, and put under the control of amateurs, aviation staff officers, or ASOs. This is the first such change since the Civil War.

I document the unparalleled excellence of Dust Off, and the effects of the changes, in my book, “Dead Men Flying.” Needless to say, it was the most outstanding battlefield operating system of that war – some one million souls saved and unprecedented survival rates. No warrior of Vietnam is more revered than the Dust Off crews.

In the words of Gen. Creighton Abrams, former U.S. Army chief of staff and former supreme commander in Vietnam: “A special word about the Dust Offs … Courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them. It was a daily thing, part of the way they lived. That’s the great part, and it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dust Off was there. It was a great thing for our people.”

Fast forward to current battlefields. We hear horror stories about patients waiting and dying because Dust Off didn’t launch or came too late. The launch standard in my unit in Vietnam was two minutes; today it is 15 minutes! Can anyone imagine a fire truck taking 15 minutes to get under way? I could go on and on, but one has to ask, why? Why the changes to an excellent, proven system?

The answer is the Obama-Panetta Doctrine. In response to the horrible abandonment of dying Americans in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Panetta said: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

On its face, that is a remarkable, indeed incomprehensible, change from America’s doctrine in past wars. By that standard, there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact, I can’t think of a war we fought in which we didn’t go into harm’s way without real-time information or to save lives – something the president refused to do in Benghazi. Dust Off would never launch in Vietnam under that doctrine.

To fully understand the doctrinal change, one has to understand President Obama. He has a dearth of understanding of our military and military matters. We hear he is uncomfortable in the presence of ranking military and seldom meets with them. He is not a person who can make decisions, and he takes an extraordinary amount of time to do so, leading to such unseemly labels for a commander in chief as “ditherer in chief.”

President Obama may have set records for voting “present” on important issues. He cowers from crisis decisions. He is a politician who thinks only in terms of votes and his image. Although I was a psychology major back in the day (I’d love to hear a professional analyze risk and Obama), I won’t try to define his insides, but I believe he is risk-averse – fearful of risk – and that is the basis of the Obama-Panetta doctrine.

This aversion for risk dominates Dust Off rescue operations where, in addition to an unconscionable reaction time, risk assessment is the primary consideration for mission launch – not patient care. In two years flying Dust Off in Vietnam, I never heard that term, nor did any Dust pilot I know. The ASOs, remote from the battle, have developed time-consuming algorithms to analyze risk while the patient bleeds, something that’s impossible to do by anyone other than the pilot and the ground forces at the scene.

And Obama’s terror of risk contributed to the massacre of Americans by terrorists in Benghazi. We hear that the president did not even convene the Counterterrorism Security Group while the Benghazi terrorist massacre was visually and verbally available in real time. That is like ignoring FEMA during Hurricane Sandy. But once you bring in a group labeled anti-terrorist, you have to acknowledge terror exists, something the president is loath to do.

My veteran friends are horrified by the Obama-Panetta doctrine. At least 359 retired flag officers support Mitt Romney – only five that I know of support Obama. Some 150 former prisoners of war also support Romney; I know of none who support Obama.

America needs to listen to these veterans. They understand leadership. They know how to deal with risk in war. They would not want this man with them in combat or crisis. They never left a needy comrade behind. Obama did.


Filed under Armed Forces, Barack Obama, Benghazi, Leon Panetta, Mitt Romney, Terrorism, Veterans

11 responses to “Gen. Patrick Brady explains why president abandoned Americans in Benghazi

  1. Now that is something that is well stated!! I understand his points.

    Never was it more obvious than when he could not make a decision about the surge in Afghanistan. Oh how I had longed for someone like Bush who is less risk averse.

    I see Romney as that man. As a CEO in Bain Capital he had to make risk assessments and he did that, injecting capital into a variety of corporations.

    I remain uncertain about Leon Panetta because he was the one who pushed for getting Osama Bin Laden, not Obama who put it off at least 3 times.


    • anonymous

      So by your logic. All Romney has to do is inject large sums of money into the hands of government officials in other countries with your tax dollars… Then send in his corporate raiders?


      • where did you get that from? Talk about making up tommy rot. Please do not project your thought onto mine.


      • the response you have given shows that you put words into other peoples mouths and what you have to say is just utter garbage. In fact your surmise does not even address my comment. It is so totally off the mark that it makes you look ridiculous.

        Injecting capital into large corporations has nothing to do with what you claimed. In fact you are way off the mark.

        Let’s have a look at Mr. Dimwit who had a GPA of 2.6 and how he used your taxpayers’ dollars to pay off all of his large donors. Let’s start with Solyndra and go from there because billions upon billions of dollars were wasted in the past 4 years in what can only be described as crony capitalism and it was total corruption. That is what was done by that dimwit incumbent in the White House.

        My comment was meant to be more along the lines of a comparison in styles where one was “doing” and supporting, whilst the other was paying off his bundlers and cronies. Many businesses have benefited from Bain Capital including Burger King and Domino’s Pizza. Domino’s is a world wide company so the fact that they had a plan and it has worked actually means something. On the other hand you have Solyndra where there was no plan and it went bankrupt.

        I am talking about being able to make a decision. In the past 4 years the USA has been crippled because the incumbent in the White House did not have the ability to make a decision. The Benghazi affair and its consequences is just a further example of his inability to make decisions when an immediate response is required.

        Then of course there is the fact that the dimwit cannot get it through his head that there had been a terror attack. It was not just Benghazi, but also Ft. Hood, and Little Rock where people were killed due to the acts of jihadists. These were terror attacks on American soil. The refusal to call these terror attacks is disgusting. However, in the case of Benghazi there is the additional problem that the dimwit failed to call in the counterterrorism response group, thus he allowed 4 Americans to die and he would have willingly sacrificed the lives of up to 30 others because he is nothing but an utter failure and is not executive material.

        This is why your remarks are so utterly stupid.


        • Um, hey Aussie? Overkill, friend. It’s not feeding time. 😉

          Other than that, great rant. Carry on!


          • No way is it overkill. I am fed up with Leftists and the way that they put their words into the mouths of others.


            • GP

              Good try, but as you know
              It is useless arguing with useful idiots.


              • yes, they really are useful idiots. However, my rant is also for others to show that there are other issues and to point out how the useful idiots operate. The leap in this case was just too stupid for words.

                A chief executive officer has more experience than a know-it-all who has not done a lick of work in his whole life, and constantly votes present because he is too stupid to do otherwise.


                • chrissythehyphenated

                  I’ve been wondering if they’re paid Democrat Trolls randomly surfing Conservative sites dropping little off topic, Dem talking point turds for us to step in. Personally, I think it’s counter-productive for their side, since it gives us an open invitation to respond intelligently and at length. Our legitimate visitors are intelligent people. They’ll see the truth.


                • chrissythehyphenated

                  And thanks for the rant, Aussie.


                • Yes indeed your regular visitors are intelligent, and this is all the more reason to show up the kind of idiocy that was spouted. Never put words into the mouth of an Australian!!