Originally Posted by listopencil
There is a lot of info in one of the giant Benghazi threads. SecDef made that claim (by his words) on the advice of his direct subordinate, but his subordinate did not back him up on that. Some of the confusion arises because there are two issues with support. There was a discussion about whether the local CIA called for support from the State Dept, and whether that request was denied. There is another issue about whether State worked with Defense to coordinate support, and the discussion between State and Defense about the logistics of that support from Defense. From going over the reports, my opinion is that State was badly undermanned, outgunned and unprepared for the situation. There were multiple Defense assets readily available. One of the issues surrounding the lack of reaction by Defense is the adamant viewpoint expressed by State that this was a mob protest spurred on by a derogatory YouTube video rather than a continually escalating terrorist operation. This lie (it was admitted by State as an intentional lie) was used to downplay the State's responsibility to express the potentially dangerous nature of the situation, and to request aid from Defense both prior to and during the incident.
According to the investigation they found that the military didn't have assets close enough by to respond in a timely matter. Also as I have already posted the CIA was most likely to provide security.