Panetta's bizarre foolishness

Jonah  is correct.  Panetta's explanation for not responding precludes the US military from ever responding.  And I would point out that any attack in a city or any other environment with the potential for non-combatants to be present is similarly precluded.  Frankly, I don't know how the US military could operate in Iraq or Afghanistan under the Panetta doctrine.

Jonah:

If the circumstances in Libya didn’t meet the “enough information” threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does? And, note, Panetta & Co. make it sound as if the decision to let the Americans on the scene twist in the wind was sort of a no-brainer, not a difficult decision. So what happened in Libya didn’t even come close to the threshold for intervention. 

What does that mean? Well, it seems to me that any embassy or consulate subjected to a surprise attack will likely catch the administration off guard. That’s why they call them “surprise attacks,” after all. According to the Panetta doctrine, the very essence of what makes a surprise attack a surprise attack likely precludes any commitment of U.S. forces to repel it. The message to our diplomats and troops: You’re on your own. The message to terrorists: As long as you keep your attacks minimally confusing, you win.  

That’s outrageous.