New Disclosures on Benghazi

[JoeTheJuggler]

I’m quite sure there are a few of those living in the “right-wingnut land” that feel the same way about the left. But, that doesn’t solve the who and how someone dropped the ball mystery that caused the loss of life of innocent Americans.

See my post number 995. The "ball" is more or less permanently dropped when speaking of risk of attack on diplomatic facilities.

There were many more attacks and many more people killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities during the Bush administration (even if we pro-rate for the length of time in office--Obama's on a pace to be in office for fewer than one quarter the deaths and less than half the number of attacks).

 

[RandFan]

I’m quite sure there are a few of those living in the “right-wingnut land” that feel the same way about the left. But, that doesn’t solve the who and how someone dropped the ball mystery that caused the loss of life of innocent Americans.

I don't think there is much mystery here. This was a CIA operation.

CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

Given that and what Robert Gates has said about the State Department ("I would have handled Benghazi the same way") I think we can safely focus on them, the CIA.

 

[fess]

So, the CIA was the one that made the decision to not provide additional security to the embassy? It seems to me from what I have been seeing on the news; there are a lot of unanswered questions. And dragging Bush’s name into the foray is not going to help answer any of those questions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think there is much mystery here. This was a CIA operation.

Yikes, did I totally misread that at first. We had the claim that the Obama administration was trying to deflect responsibility for the deaths, and now I thought you were saying the attack was a CIA operation!

You're saying the embassy was mostly a CIA facility. I don't know how significant that is, since, as I've shown, U.S. diplomatic facilities are attacked and people killed with alarming regularity. It's nothing new or unique to this embassy.

People who work in U.S. Embassies have relatively risky jobs. Or specifically, they face a substantially higher risk of terrorist attack than most of us.

 

[uke2se]

So, the CIA was the one that made the decision to not provide additional security to the embassy?

No, that would be the GOP house.

 

[A'isha]

So, the CIA was the one that made the decision to not provide additional security to the embassy?

Benghazi wasn't where the embassy was. Benghazi had a diplomatic mission which was mostly used as cover for a CIA operation, and the CIA had the most personnel in the city and were entirely responsible for the security of their own Annex facility.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, the CIA was the one that made the decision to not provide additional security to the embassy? It seems to me from what I have been seeing on the news; there are a lot of unanswered questions. And dragging Bush’s name into the foray is not going to help answer any of those questions.

The facts may disabuse you of the notion that somebody in the Obama administration (or the CIA under the director of his appointee) did something horribly wrong that resulted in these deaths.

The fact is, bad guys attack U.S. diplomatic facilities with some regularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

Whatever explanation you're looking for is going to be the one that explains all of these incidents.

What questions do you think have gone unanswered?

ETA: To answer the question you asked here, I think we can blame Republicans in Congress for the cuts to embassy security budgets. But again, I don't think that makes them culpable for these deaths. As I've shown, we've had more terrorist attacks on embassies resulting in more deaths even when we spent more on security.

 

[RandFan]

Yikes, did I totally misread that at first. We had the claim that the Obama administration was trying to deflect responsibility for the deaths, and now I thought you were saying the attack was a CIA operation!

You're saying the embassy was mostly a CIA facility. I don't know how significant that is, since, as I've shown, U.S. diplomatic facilities are attacked and people killed with alarming regularity. It's nothing new or unique to this embassy.

People who work in U.S. Embassies have relatively risky jobs. Or specifically, they face a substantially higher risk of terrorist attack than most of us.

I completely accept your premises.

Benghazi wasn't where the embassy was. Benghazi had a diplomatic mission which was mostly used as cover for a CIA operation, and the CIA had the most personnel in the city and were entirely responsible for the security of their own Annex facility.

This ^^^

 

[A'isha]

You're saying the embassy was mostly a CIA facility. I don't know how significant that is, since, as I've shown, U.S. diplomatic facilities are attacked and people killed with alarming regularity. It's nothing new or unique to this embassy.

Well, it's significant in that the CIA, which completely controlled one of the two facilities in Benghazi and had the vast majority of the personnel there, were just as responsible as the State Department, if not more responsible, for the safety and security of the people and buildings there.

That appears to be what was behind the bureaucratic knife fight between the two agencies when it came to the content of the talking points memo.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Benghazi wasn't where the embassy was. Benghazi had a diplomatic mission which was mostly used as cover for a CIA operation, and the CIA had the most personnel in the city and were entirely responsible for the security of their own Annex facility.

I think I understand the point you're making, but technically wasn't this "annex" the building that housed the Ambassador? If so, that makes it an embassy.

At any rate, the CIA use of diplomatic facilities isn't such a strange or unusual thing either. Of course, maybe that's what explains why these facilities are so often targeted by terrorists.

Or it could be simpler than that: for small, poorly funded and terrorist groups, these facilities are the nearest and most accessible U.S. target. In the case of Benghazi, even if an attack had been planned for months, they certainly took advantage of the chaos and diversion caused by the film protests. At the very least it created an informational fog. (My own theory is that it was an opportunistic attack. A small cell had plans for this attack but struck when the iron was hot, so to speak. Otherwise, we'd have to believe the timing of the protests was coincidental or the protests were staged or something like that.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, it's significant in that the CIA, which completely controlled one of the two facilities in Benghazi and had the vast majority of the personnel there, were just as responsible as the State Department, if not more responsible, for the safety and security of the people and buildings there.

That appears to be what was behind the bureaucratic knife fight between the two agencies when it came to the content of the talking points memo.

I understand that point, but the same thing was doubtless true in at least some cases of the previous terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities. Again, there's nothing unique about this one. Sadly, it happens quite often.

Trying to politicize it and paint it as a scandal of any kind is simply wrong.

The only people responsible for these deaths were the bad guys who planned, supported and carried out these attacks. That is not the CIA or the State Department. We were the victims here, just as we were in all these other attacks on diplomatic facilities.

 

[spin0]

It seems to me from what I have been seeing on the news; there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Accountability Review Board's report would be a good place to start: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

 

[A'isha]

I think I understand the point you're making, but technically wasn't this "annex" the building that housed the Ambassador? If so, that makes it an embassy.

The diplomatic mission (what has been called the "consulate") and the CIA Annex were two separate buildings in Benghazi, about a mile away from each other. The Embassy itself was in Tripoli. Stevens was just visiting Benghazi - his official residence was back at the Embassy in Tripoli.

The only people responsible for these deaths were the bad guys who planned, supported and carried out these attacks. That is not the CIA or the State Department. We were the victims here, just as we were in all these other attacks on diplomatic facilities.

Yes, but I think these are really two separate, if related questions: could anything have been done before the attacks to be better prepared for them, and if so, who had the responsibility to do that?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, but I think these are really two separate, if related questions: could anything have been done before the attacks to be better prepared for them, and if so, who had the responsibility to do that?

And I would point out that those questions should relate to all of these attacks on diplomatic facilities and not focus in on Bengazzi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

But that's not what's going on. This attack, for no valid reason, has been politicized in an attempt to create a scandal.

The valid questions you're asking should be asked about all the terrorist attacks on diplomatic facilities. If nothing else, the broader sample size is more likely to provide useful generalizations rather than turning up a bunch of minutia and causing defensiveness.

 

[RandFan]

The following clip is David Brooks explaining the conflict between the CIA and State Department regarding the CIA's CYA.

http://youtu.be/uTg4wbDdmZ0?t=14m

 

[A'isha]

The valid questions you're asking should be asked about all the terrorist attacks on diplomatic facilities. If nothing else, the broader sample size is more likely to provide useful generalizations rather than turning up a bunch of minutia and causing defensiveness.

I agree. That's why the State Department's ARB report is a step in the right direction, and Issa's hearings are an utterly useless farce.

If this was really an important issue to Republicans, they would (as you say) investigate all those attacks over the past decade and see where any systemic problems might lay and how best to prepare for future attacks, without regard for whether or not they could gain a political advantage out of it all.

 

[RandFan]

And I would point out that those questions should relate to all of these attacks on diplomatic facilities and not focus in on Bengazzi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

But that's not what's going on. This attack, for no valid reason, has been politicized in an attempt to create a scandal.

The valid questions you're asking should be asked about all the terrorist attacks on diplomatic facilities. If nothing else, the broader sample size is more likely to provide useful generalizations rather than turning up a bunch of minutia and causing defensiveness.

I don't have a problem with your point. I'm on board with you. However, people are demanding answers about Benghazi. The notion that hey, it's a dangerous job is legitimate and perhaps that's sufficient answer particularly given the politicization of the event. However, there is in fact some information on the event for those who are interested to know as much as possible about this single incident.

Again, I agree with your premises.

 

[spin0]

I think I understand the point you're making, but technically wasn't this "annex" the building that housed the Ambassador? If so, that makes it an embassy.

The embassy was in Tripoli. The compounds in Benghazi have officially been referred to as "diplomatic post", "Special Mission compound" and "Annex". Ambassador Chris Stevens was visiting Benghazi first time since ten months.

According to ARB's report the temporary nature as a diplomatic mission was a contributing factor to weakened security:

Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full time office facility. This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB). Benghazi’s initial platform in November 2011 was far short of OSPB standards and remained so even in September 2012, despite multiple fieldexpedient upgrades funded by DS [the Bureau of Diplomatic Security]. (As a temporary, residential facility, SMC was not eligible for OBO-funded security upgrades.) A comprehensive upgrade and risk-mitigation plan did not exist, nor was a comprehensive security review conducted by Washington for Benghazi in 2012. The unique circumstances surrounding the creation of the mission in Benghazi as a temporary mission outside the realm of permanent diplomatic posts resulted in significant disconnects and support gaps.

 

[A'isha]

Basically, Benghazi was not staffed to protect an Ambassador because the Ambassador was pretty much never there, and when Stevens traveled to Benghazi, for whatever reason he apparently took only minimal protection with him. I believe the total State Department staff (not including any of the CIA personnel in Benghazi) was the Ambassador, two non-combatant staffers (one of whom was Sean Smith, the information management officer that was also killed in the initial assault), and four security personnel, for a total of seven. The rest of the security at the compound was all local, formed of members of the February 17 Brigade, a Benghazi militia force.

I don't believe there were any non-CIA State Department people in any of the compounds in Benghazi other than what Stevens brought with him from Tripoli, actually.

 

[spin0]

The rest of the security at the compound was all local, formed of members of the February 17 Brigade, a Benghazi militia force.

Yes, plus there were the local unarmed guards from British contractor Blue Mountain Libya (lowest bidder I guess):

The Special Mission also had an unarmed, contract local guard force (LGF), Blue Mountain Libya (BML), which provided five guards per eight-hour shift, 24/7, to open and close the gates, patrol the compound, and give warning in case of an attack.