So, the higher ups were worried that the Benghazi attack could degrade the security situation at the Tripoli embassy compound, so they didn’t want to weaken an already depleted security team (having sent forces to Benghazi - two of which were killed). That all seems reasonable.

A question that isn’t addressed in the NBC report- why were the SOF armed with only handguns? Is that standard operating procedure for diplomatic missions in unstable environments? This seems unreasonable.

We’ve already seen the DoD adjust its policies and procedures by setting up a special command to deal with these situations and to respond with forces on the ground within 4-6 hours (from a base in Spain). So, clearly the DoD didn’t have this capability before and State didn’t consider this in their force protection plans either.

Someone who’s on the ground like Hicks may have a very different view of what’s going on - micro view versus macro view. Hicks may think that everything is going to hell in Benghazi and that all resources nearby should be used to come to the rescue. The guy with the macro view (his superiors at State - and later coordinating with DoD) may see that by shifting resources too far to assist, they are opening the door to an attack on their main compound and imperil even more FSOs and civilians - and putting the rescue of those at the other location in risk as well. Logistics and maintaining the supply chain come into play too. It’s a balancing act.