On my Truth for Texans blog, I don't normally weigh in on national politics, but there's been so much craziness bantered around about the Benghazi attack and the subsequent handling of it that I feel compelled to do a little truthful analysis.
Let me preface my observations by saying that I have more than a political perspective on this issue. As the father of an active-duty Army officer and as a civilian contractor for the military who has had regular (albeit limited) exposure to the military culture since 2005, I would like to offer a little non-technical military and intelligence community perspective in addition to political analysis.
The Benghazi attack is a legitimate issue for a variety of reasons, but it seems conservatives are focusing on the wrong concerns. Let's look first at what is most likely NOT a legitimate issue, and then we'll look at those issues that are legitimate.
DEFENDING THE EMBASSY AND AMERICAN PERSONNEL
One of the most well-written, comprehensive, and politically neutral reports regarding the attack and how it was defended against comes from Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/11/02/officials-counter-benghazi-attack-reports.html). It provides a very clear and concise timeline of what was a chaotic night in real time. As I read it objectively, the story unfolds precisely as one would expect in the context of combat resulting from a well-planned surprise attack against a secured installation. I don't profess the military knowledge of a trained warrior, but in layman's terms, we could break down the event like this:
Prior to 9:40p -- Surprise attack by militants against embassy compound
9:40p -- embassy calls to nearby CIA compound for support and evacuation
9:40p-10:05p -- CIA personnel plan rescue in context of facing a force which is superior in arms and personnel, and which has tactical advantage because of the element of surprise. Part of CIA plan is to include Libyan security forces in response, which will provide heavy weaponry and additional personnel to neutralize the tactical advantages of the attackers. Contemporaneously, a second CIA response team is scrambled from Tripoli, over 400 miles away by air. Special Operations forces from Europe are already on heightened alert due to the 9/11 anniversary, but they are not on standby. They are ordered to muster and move to Sigonella AFB in Italy for potential deployment. The Defense Department scrambles an unarmed Predator drone and sends it to monitor the scene.
10:05p-11:30p -- Unable to secure Libyan regulars as reinforcements, the CIA security team initiates a rescue attempt. They are outgunned and outmanned, but under complete operational autonomy on the ground, they are able to reach the embassy and begin the rescue.
11:30p-1:00a -- CIA Benghazi Team evacuates embassy personnel by vehicle, taking fire from militants as they depart. Sadly, Ambassador Stevens could not be located and evacuated. The Predator drone arrives on scene to provide real-time monitoring. The attackers pursue the team to the CIA annex, about a mile from the embassy, and continue an extended firefight with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades which finally subsides around 1:00a. At roughly the same time, CIA Tripoli Team lands at Benghazi Airport, but is not able to secure ground transportation by Libyan security forces to take them to the combat zone.
1:00a-5:00a -- While CIA Benghazi Team secures the annex and protects the rescued embassy personnel, CIA Tripoli Team scrambles to acquire ground transportation and other support to mount a search and rescue for Ambassador Stevens. After several hours, they are finally able to secure transportation, but have learned that Stevens is likely dead at a local hospital and the security situation there is "troublesome." The team heads to the CIA annex to reinforce CIA Benghazi Team.
after 5:00a -- CIA Tripoli Team arrives at CIA annex, and shortly thereafter the annex comes under an intense mortar attack. The defenders return fire, but two are killed by a mortar round. After 11 minutes, the mortar attack ends.
around 6:00a -- A heavily armed Libyan military unit finally arrives at the annex to provide support and security. The American contingent is evacuated to Benghazi Airport and flown out of country.
It is important to note that the battle flow represented above makes perfect sense in real time. There are no obvious delays or dereliction of duties on the part of the Americans. There is significant malfeasance on the part of Libyan security, who failed to provide QRF support (quick reaction force) in the initial moments of the attack, failed to provide timely transportation and support for the CIA Tripoli Team, and failed to provide heavy weapons and personnel to quell the attack until the fighting was over.
Notice that nowhere in this timeline and narrative is there any real opportunity for the highest levels of the chain of command -- The White House, NSA, CIA, State Department, or Defense Department -- to intervene in either a positive way by engaging other assets or in a negative way by withholding them. In that sense, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is correct to refer to speculation about battle management as "Monday-morning quarterbacking."
Given the realities of how the battle unfolded, both sides of the political aisle should do nothing but commend the CIA operatives and other American personnel who courageously engaged the enemy and saved lives. Without their efforts, the outcome could have been much, much more grave. It is also inappropriate for conservatives to question specifics of how the battle was carried out unless there is clear and unequivocal evidence that there was failure of command. Given the facts as now presented, I find it highly unlikely that such is the case.
So, if there is nothing to criticize in how the battle was fought, what are the legitimate issues that are worthy of further investigation and explanation? Consider the questions that follow.
WHY WAS THERE A SHORTAGE OF ASSETS SUFFICIENT TO REPEL AND DEFEND THE ATTACK?
It's not
reasonable to criticize the mobilization of American assets as the
battle unfolded. The CIA Benghazi Team responded timely. The CIA
Tripoli Team was mobilized timely. The DoD deployed a Predator drone
to the scene in a timely fashion. Special Operations assets were
scrambled in Europe in real time. Let's not challenge the use of
assets. However, there are other actions regarding assets that are
highly questionable.
First, a major
contributing factor to the chaos on the ground was our detrimental
reliance on Libyan security forces to serve as the QRF and as the
most substantial elements of defense. Unfortunately, the realities
of international politics is that it would have been unacceptable for
the USA to have heavy weaponry and military personnel stationed in
Libya. In a way, we were diplomatically encumbered to defer to the
Libyans for this level of support. But, where were they when we
needed them most?
If the Libyan
forces were unreliable, what could we have done to be better prepared
to respond with American assets? First, there is a standing question
whether we had willfully reduced our security capacity in the months
prior to the attack, and whether those reductions were ill-advised
given the potential threats? We knew there was a heightened threat
due to the 9/11 anniversary; rather than merely putting our forces on
higher alert status, should we have had our own Special Operations
units loaded up on standby, ready to take flight on a moment's notice
to places of trouble?
While it seems
that we were caught short-handed and outgunned, it is unreasonable to
expect Special Ops teams to be sitting on the tarmac in anticipation
of potential trouble. That's just not the way the military and
intelligence communities work. However, I would like a good answer
why we had so few security personnel available, and why we couldn't
arrange transportation from the airport at the very least.
Finally, as the
battle unfolded, should we have responded unilaterally with air
support? To this, I can answer absolutely not. Even had we flown in
fighter jets from Italy, there were no clearly defined targets to
hit, and no action on the ground to tactically support. This was
basically a renegade siege. Even if the US had requested and
received permission from the Libyan government to use air support,
there was no bona fide tactical opportunity to do so.
WAS OUR CAPACITY SUFFICIENT IN LIGHT OF THE AVAILABLE
INTELLIGENCE AND THREAT LEVEL?
This question
is necessary to ask, but difficult to answer publicly because of the
classified nature of the intelligence. Did we really know an attack
was being planned? Did we have intelligence on the size, scope and
nature of the attack in advance? Was there a lack of intelligence,
was there faulty intelligence, or was it fragmented intelligence for
which the dots were never connected? Or, was the intelligence
available but not acted on appropriately higher up the chain of
command?
I believe these
are all reasonable and necessary questions to ask, but once again I
don't see an obvious intelligence failure from what we know so far.
WHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE PERSISTENTLY ADVANCE THE NARRATIVE
THAT THE ATTACK WAS IN RESPONSE TO AN OFFENSE TO ISLAM?
For me, this is
the most significant question with which the Obama Administration
needs to be confronted. None of the explanations offered so far make
any sense in light of what we know. I cannot accept the
Administration's suggestion that the movie protest was the best
explanation at the time, because there has already been too much
evidence to reveal that such an explanation was at best highly
dubious, given the collection of contemporaneous information that has
already been made public.
Some have
conjectured that the motivation to advance the false narrative was
strictly political, a kind of universal denial that terrorism against
the USA still exists. That scenario makes no sense to me, because
all Americans, and particularly swing voters, know we are still at
risk. And frankly, the President could have made himself look strong
and assertive to those voters by being out front on this attack and
promising a definitive response.
Some have also
hinted that the fictional narrative was advanced as a way to protect
the classified intelligence on the attackers, giving our intelligence
and military community a strategic advantage in identifying and
locating the bad guys so they can be permanently removed. Once
again, I find this theory implausible, because there were too many
witnesses to the attack, too many news sources through which the true
story would be unfolded, for the Administration to get any reasonable
intelligence advantage from a well-crafted prevarication.
All this leaves
only one other viable theory as I see it: due to some degree of
incompetence, the Administration simply couldn't put together all the
pieces of information to come up with an accurate assessment. Given
the demonstrations at the US Embassy in Egypt on the same day,
elements of the Administration simply assumed that the two events
were similarly conceived and motivated. It was the easiest
explanation without getting to the bottom of the story. If this
scenario is the actual one, it calls into question the most
fundamental competencies of the Obama Administration.
Going forward,
let's push for answers to the questions that matter, rather than
engaging in conjecture and criticism about the tactical specifics of
a battle that was not of our choosing.
