Overrun in Benghazi

 
 

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday said the first line-of-duty death of a U.S. ambassador since the Carter Administration was on her. "I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN's Elise Labott during a brief trip to Lima, Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.""  The Atlantic

--------------------------------

Hillary Clinton properly took the rhetorical "spear" for this.  As she says, she is responsible for everything that happens in her department of the US Government.  As she also said, there was very little chance that POTUS or VPOTUS would have known anything of the details of security in Benghazi unless something spectacular occurred before the fact to alert them.  The assumption would have been made by them that State Department administrative services would respond to incidents as appropriate.  Does that seem odd?  It should not.  The US Government is too big and wildly articulated for it to function any other way.  State Department security consultants had recommended greater security.  Security consultants always recommend greater security.  Those recommendations justify their contracts.  Whether or not work gets done in hardening particular facilities is largely a matter of available budgeted funds.  Priorities have to be set in an environment of world-wide threat and a Congress that has always liked to pare down State Department requests for money.  This is in notable contrast to the largesse heaped on Defense and the intelligence community.  Bottom Line:  Some mid level person in the State Department probably gave more work in Banghazi a lower priority than proved prudent. Whoever made that decision should be held accountable for it, not because of some lack of virtue in the decision, but rather to make others more alert to such situations.

The Romney campaign is doing everything it can to make a moral issue of this unfortunate event.  How sad!  They should listen to the appeals of Stevens' father for a dignified response.

Will this be a significant factor in the outcome of the election? I doubt it.  The American electorate is actually too smart to be deceived on this.  pl

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-amazing-story-of-what-happened-in-libya/263597/#

Comments

[Lars]

I think you expect too much from the Munchausen/Aesop ticket but it would be nice if your accurate assessment got wider exposure. Time and time again we have seen the consequences of drinking too much of that Neocon Cool Aid. It sure creates some very bad hangovers.

[Jose]

Respectfully, the moderator took one for team just like HRC:

http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/

[Cliffiord Kiracofe]

So will O launch a raid/strike/whatever against terrorists in Libya prior to the election to make his point?

Shouldn't R now just change the topic to Syria policy and walk back his support of those Syria jihadis with whom we "share values"?

If he is going to flip flop again then do it right and say O bungled Syria, the FSA is garbage, the jihadis run the show, and we face regional war if not worse.

Drinking a little less Neocon Kool Aid, perhaps R could also drop his call for heavy weapons to those value sharing "freedom fighters" and so on. Suffering from Kaganosis (an advanced form of Neoconitis) as he does this may not be easy. Detox and recovery make take longer than until Monday. The world will be watching.

[turcopolier]

jose

I thought she let Romney misbehave. She should have told him to shut up and sit down. He, and you are upset because that domineering CEO crap did not work. pl

[turcopolier]

Clifford

If the target packages firm up there could be some "used people" in Libya anytime. pl

[The Moar You Know]

"The American electorate is actually too smart to be deceived on this."

A novel theory, but in this rare instance I think you're correct. Romney wanted to shove that talking point out there so bad he was practically peeing on the stage. Shame he was dealing with somebody who doesn't get all his information off of Fox (the source and promulgator of this particular talking point) and incidentally who's a lot better at this game than he is.

[Jose]

Sir, she gave him almost five more minutes, interrupted him twenty-eight times, and let BHO lie several times without fact-checking him. She was a partisan participant. Still it was a draw so get use to President Romney.

[robt willmann]

Meanwhile, from Afghanistan, it is reported today that on Saturday (13 October) a suicide bomber at an "Afghan intelligence office" blew himself up, killing a female soldier (probably in the Army) who was in a military intelligence company, and a CIA officer (an actual CIA employee as opposed to an "agent" recruited by the CIA), and several Afghans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/afghanistan-insider-attack-cia-agent-killed_n_1973171.html

[turcopolier]

jose

You may have noticed that there have not been any "election 2012" posts on SST. You have tried to draw me into this several times. Once again, all politicians are scum. These four are no different. If you do it again... pl

[twv]

So then, pick the one with the best looking wife.

[Al Spafford]

Or, the best personality in a wife! Have you heard all the complaining Mrs Romney been doing? Michelle has certainly demonstrated a much more "First Lady" appeal!

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Sounds like a plan, light 'em up.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

"BENGHAZI, Libya — The militia commander who led the deadly raid on the U.S. mission in Benghazi is an Islamist and former political prisoner whose fighters were also blamed for assassinating a senior military officer after he defected to the opposition during last year's revolution against Moammar Kadafi, a senior Libyan official said.
....
A senior Libyan official on Wednesday identified the commander in the cellphone photo taken by a witness to the attack as Abu Khattala, who founded a militia of former prisoners called the Abu Obeida brigade.
....
"He is the one who is responsible" for leading attackers on the U.S. mission, said the Libyan official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing the ongoing investigation.
....
Some experts believe the Abu Obeida brigade is now part of Ansar al Sharia, an Islamist militia and social organization that disappeared from Benghazi after it was targeted in popular protests against the attack. U.S. officials reportedly intercepted communications from members of Ansar al Sharia bragging about the attack to Al Qaeda affiliates in North Africa.
....
Abu Khattala's whereabouts was unknown, but the Libyan official said he's probably still in Benghazi — where his poor Laythi neighborhood has earned the moniker "Little Kandahar" — or elsewhere in eastern Libya."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-consulate-justice-20121018,0,2177659.story

[jonst]

I'm curious, rhetorical question, what, exactly does "I take responsibility for this" mean, in practical terms?

[jonst]

If lying is not allowed on these debates, you won't be able to hold them.

[Medicine Man]

A sure sign of victory when your side is complaining about the referee.

[robt willmann]

Not only the best looking wife, but the best looking female offspring as well...that would be Jon Huntsman, who dropped out of the Republican race after the New Hampshire primary and in the middle of the next one (North or South Carolina, I think). Huntsman, also a Mormon, has a calm kind of demeanor and does not have the uptight persona of Mitt Romney.

[Fred]

I would say yes, except for that kool aid thing. I'm sure Mitt's still thirsty for power and the sycophants around him will give him plenty to drink.

[Fred]

If he can't handle one tv moderator how's he going to handle a foreign head of state? I'd go on with some talking points, but this isn't that kind of blog. Besides, I was busy watching the Tigers crush the Yankees and only viewed the debate afterwards.

[steve g]

"What chew mean Willis?

[Tyler]

I'll just say that sacrificing agents/officers/whoever is a recurring theme with this administration.

Fast and Furious was another botched operation where there was no real end game, no real idea of why they were doing what they were doing, just a lot of assurances that what they were doing would work out.

Then BPA Brian Terry's BORTAC group is ordered to engage drug smugglers with less lethal weaponry, and he gets killed. A few more dead Border Patrol and ICE Agents later and we get a lot of platitudes but no real responsibility.

I can't speak for how State works - they have a higher profile and a larger mission than DHS certainly. I do know that a lot of agents I work with are worried about being hung out to dry because some Mexican mother holds up middle school pictures from 6 years ago of her smuggling, cartel member son and cries for the cameras and DoJ "civil rights" lawyers.

Ugly times all around, it seems.

[The Twisted Genius]

I whole heartedly agree with Col Lang on this one, as well as the idea that you are never safe in the field expressed earlier. Contract security specialists and even military personnel not familiar with the functions of a diplomatic mission will always push for more security. That's their job... or livelihood. It's up to the ambassador, the country team and the DOS to balance security requirements with the main functions of the diplomatic mission. Otherwise we would end up with a lot of ambassadors holed up in fortified strongpoints rather than working out of embassies and consulates.

Why was there uncertainty about the official explanation of events? Probably because there was real uncertainty about events. The attack in Benghazi didn't happen in a vacuum. Events in Cairo had the real potential of spinning out of control. I'm glad the administration erred on the side of downplaying the situation rather than hysterically waving the bloody shirt. I'm not so naive to think that politics did not play into the decision, but I seriously doubt it was the first consideration. If the administration is smart, it won't say much more on this until the day they announce that the Benghazi attackers have been captured and/or killed by a Libyan - U.S. force.

[turcopolier]

tyler

I don't think these situations are comparable. pl

[Tyler]

Sir,

I'm not going to argue with your assessment, since in all likelihood it is the correct one. "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to idiocy", and of course your relevant experience with State is much greater than mine. And you are dead on with security types always wanting 'more' security.

However, I get the feeling that those who die in the name of "the march of democracy" back in the Bush years or "the Arab Spring" nowadays are thought of as deaths that 'have to happen' to bring about whatever insane ideology is vogue nowadays in DC.

[robt willmann]

Clifford,

On whose side is this Ahmed Abu Khattala? The LA Times article is not entirely clear.

It says he was a prisoner in Ghadafi's notorious Abu Salim prison. This means that he was against Ghadafi. It also says that he is suspected of being involved in the assassination of General Younis, who had defected to the rebels from being Ghadafi's Secretary of Homeland Security. That could be personal retribution for being in the nasty prison, as the article suggests, but it could also be part of a conflict with other opponents of Ghadafi, or a belief that Gen. Younis was a double agent of Ghadafi, or something else.

If Khattala was in on the attack on the U.S. consulate, then of course he does not like the U.S. But does he also not like the current makeshift Libyan "government"? Or is it just the U.S. he is against?

The article does not say whether he got out of Ghadafi's prison before or after the fighting against Ghadafi started. If it was after the fighting started, the U.S. may have been instrumental in creating conditions that allowed him to get out.

Perhaps Khattala is against both the U.S. and those who are trying to rule Libya at this time. The article suggests that he was at the scene of the attack. If that is true, is he acting on his own initiative or as the result of encouragement by others?

The situation appears murkier than the media and talk radio people would like to make it.