Leadership Significance

The military leadership and political leadership involved in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack were most certainly not on the same the page and very much had a lack of communication with each other. There had been multiple requests to the state department for increased security forces even months before the attack. These requests were denied due to lack of efficient intelligence information supporting the request. Without the proper information through intelligence US troops would have been put at a greater risk by going into the unknown rather than preparing for the mission ahead. Once the attack began there was not enough time for US forces to arrive and cause any changes in the outcome. The decision to send more security should have been made long before the attack occurred.

There was absolutely not enough security, and had there been the results could have been significantly better. Sufficient security may or may not have prevented the attack but there is a chance that the results could have resulted in fewer deaths. Strong security forces can affect outcomes of situations such as these in many ways. A large security team can cause intimidation against those committing these attacks just by having the numbers to closely fight the group they are facing. This attack had very little security causing the look from an outsiders view to be seen as a greater chance of success while more security would do the opposite and cause thoughts of possible failure instead.

In areas such as this where we cannot rapidly respond to uprisings and threats we should have roaming patrols. By implanting this security posture we could increase response time in areas where response times are currently low such as in Benghazi.

While saving lives is a major goal and what every soldier whether leadership or not strives to do, disobeying a lawful order should remain strictly intolerable. If a direct order is disobeyed even with good intentions