YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Senate committee: Real Benghazi scandal was not the talking points

January 16, 2014|Robin Abcarian
  • An armed man holds his rifle as he stands next to blazing buildings at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in September 2012. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three others were killed when armed attackers stormed the consulate.
An armed man holds his rifle as he stands next to blazing buildings at the… (European Pressphoto Agency )

One reason “Captain Phillips” was such a satisfying movie was because it showed how the U.S. deploys its vast military might in the service of one puny life. There was something incredibly stirring about watching a Navy flotilla slice through the Gulf of Aden to rescue an American captain whose merchant ship has been hijacked by Somali pirates.

It’s what we wished had happened Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi when some 60 extremists, some with ties to Al Qaeda groups, stormed a U.S. diplomatic compound and killed four Americans. The Hollywood ending just wasn't to be.

A scathing bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, released Wednesday,  says the tragedy was predictable and preventable.

That is a scandal -- a real one. Not a phony one like the "scandal" ginned up by partisans trying to doom President Obama’s reelection over flawed talking points. Outside the conservative echo chamber, that "scandal" never got much traction.

And yet, more than a year later, even the Senate committee, which agreed on many points, could not rise above the partisan fray on that.

Republicans continued to insist the administration hid any Al Qaeda involvement because President Obama was running for reelection and wanted to protect a “fictitious and politically-motivated storyline” that the terrorist group “had been decimated and was on the run.”

Democrats found the talking points “flawed but mostly accurate.” They said the CIA deleted the reference to Al Qaeda to protect intelligence sources. An incorrect assertion that the attacks somehow grew out of protests against an American-made anti-Muslim film stemmed from confusion, they said, not an attempt to mislead. They faulted intelligence sources for allowing that error to go uncorrected.

Anyway, the Benghazi talking points are so last election cycle.

The Senate report helps us grasp something much more important and disturbing: The woefully inadequate security scheme that left Americans vulnerable in a dangerous and unstable outpost.

An embarrassing litany of failures is contained in the 85-page report: unheeded requests for extra security, uninstalled security cameras that might have alerted mission personnel to the attack, a lack of fire safety equipment which might have saved the lives of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and computer specialist Sean Smith, who died of smoke inhalation after dozens of bad guys easily gained access to the compound and set it afire with diesel gasoline.

There was also what now appears a foolish but unavoidable reliance on local militias for protection. The Benghazi compound, said the report, had been “vandalized and attacked” in the months leading up to the September disaster by some of the same Libyan guards who were supposed to defend it.

In the last 24 hours, I’ve read news accounts that imply Stevens was somehow complicit in the lack of security because he twice turned down offers for a military security team by Gen. Carter Ham, commander of American forces in Africa.

It’s not clear in the report why Stevens turned down those offers, and a State Department spokeswoman could not say why in her regular briefing Wednesday, but it is clear that security was uppermost on his mind.

In July, he had requested “a minimum” of 13 extra security officers, to be deployed at the Benghazi outpost and also in Tripoli, where the U.S.  Embassy was located. “The State Department never fulfilled this request,” the report said, “and never responded to the request with a cable.”

Weeks later, on Aug. 16, Stevens again requested more security from the State Department to deal with a “deteriorating” situation in Benghazi. In the cable, a CIA officer was quoted as saying that a daily pattern of violence against Americans in Benghazi was “the new normal.” No significant action was taken.

The State Department took some minor steps. It authorized raising perimeter walls, installing concrete barriers and safety grills. But, the report found, officials should have done much more. The compound was surrounded by a weak perimeter and incomplete interior fence. Entry gates and doors were not sufficiently armored. The compound also lacked enough weapons, ammunition, non-lethal deterrents and fire safety equipment -- “including escape masks.”

(By contrast, the Senate report noted, the CIA, which had a smaller building in the same compound, “consistently upgraded its security posture over the same time period” in Benghazi. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, the two CIA officers who died in Benghazi hours after the initial attack, were killed by mortar fire as they stood on the roof of the CIA’s annex in the compound.)

So whose head should roll?

Los Angeles Times Articles