CIA cover-up in Benghazi?

Benghazi. The story that keeps on running.

CNN's Jake Tapper is reporting that around 35 CIA officers were present in Benghazi during the consulate attack last September. Tapper also claims that the CIA is exerting significant pressure on those officers to remain quiet about their presence in Libya. Interestingly, Tapper's piece specifically reports that the officers in question have been subjected to unusually frequent polygraph tests in order to determine whether they've been talking to the press. 

Safe to say, this is interesting news. 

So... what were the CIA doing and why are they apparently so desperate to prevent their activities from becoming public?

Off the top of my head, I can think of four reasons.

1) As CNN notes, suspicion is growing on Capitol Hill that the CIA were using Benghazi as an operations facility for the provision of weaponry to Syrian rebels. Here, it seems understandable that the US Government would want to prevent this information from becoming common knowledge. Because of the sensitivity of covert operations towards Syria and the potential stakes for US interests in Libya were that information to become known, the need for secrecy would be obvious. Ironically, if this is the case, Benghazi was probably picked as a location for its prospective ability to offer both secrecy and some form of operational security against Assad affiliated retaliation.

2) Another possibility is that the CIA was using Benghazi as a jump-off point for Special Activities Division (SAD) operations inside Syria. Flying from Benghazi into a forward staging position in Turkey would require a relatively short hop across the Mediterranean. Therefore, from a geo-strategic point of view (and in the context of the operational security concern), it would make a near-ideal staging post for covert deployments. Reliable reporting (see Ambinder and Grady's The Deep State) indicates that the US Government has deployed covert military/intelligence teams inside Iran on a number of occasions over the past few years. In addition, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we know that the US deployed small groups of personnel deep inside Iraq in order to gather targeting intelligence. So, if this possibility is the case, it wouldn't be something new. In addition, it would make at least some sense. The Obama Administration only announced that they would provide weapons to select Syrian rebels in mid-June. It's therefore very possible (and quite likely) that CIA officers were on the ground in Syria before that date - gathering intelligence on the best rebel forces to support and developing foundations for the future establishment of a weapons logistical train.

3) Though less likely than the other possibilities, I also wouldn't rule out the notion that the CIA was using Benghazi as a jump off point for operations inside Iran. As pressure escalates with regards to Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of an Israeli or US strike against that country is also growing. CIA disruption operations against Iran are already well known (see Olympic Games). But the conduct of major covert actions requires a base. Perhaps that base was in Benghazi.

4) Alternatively, it's very possible that the CIA was using Benghazi as a base of operations for action against AQIM/AQIM aligned actors. Because of the politically volatile nature of a US security presence in Africa, it would make sense for the CIA to want to keep their activities quiet. This being said, in all intelligence operations rule #1 is secrecy.

CONCLUSION - Ultimately, we don't yet know what the CIA was doing. As I've stated, all of the above is, at best, an educated guess. However, assuming the CIA was engaged in action that reached beyond Libyan borders, that activity would have required a Presidential finding. Therefore, it would also have required a briefing for the gang of 8. So... whatever the CIA was up to (if anything at all significant), a small number of significant people on the Hill are likely to know something about it.

If interested, some of my related thoughts on Benghazi.

Obama Gun Proposals, Algeria Hostages, Mali

1) The President has announced his gun reform proposals. Some are pretty sensible and are likely to garner Congressional support. Unfortunately, other proposals are the product of a willful and complete failure to understand A) guns B) gun owners.  

          First, what's good? Closing background check loopholes seems sensible. As does tougher enforcement of existing laws. However, it is noticeable about how little effort the President has made to address mental health issues. Apart from 'clarifications' on the law, Obama has offered very little. This should be the key, guns do not kill people. People kill people.

What's bad - First, I disagree with a federal assault weapons ban. As I argued for The Week a couple of weeks back (no pun intended), states should take the lead on this particular issue. Having said this, I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to assault weapon possession. Previous statements by Justice Scalia indicate that he would be unlikely to affirm such a right.

                    Second, and this is my main gripe, the call for a 10 round magazine limit is a serious mistake. In fact, I believe that such a limit is unconstitutional. In the 2008 landmark case of District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court held that civilians have the right to own weapons (including semi-automatic handguns) for the purposes of meaningful self-defense. Overturning DC's previous handgun ban, the court held that ''The (DC law in question) prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.'' The court also affirmed that the second amendment protects an individual's right for his or her firearms to be accessible and operational. When combined with the Court's stipulation ''There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.'' it seems evident that the Supreme Court has held a private right not just to gun ownership, but to a gun ownership that provides for a practical and perceptible posture of defense. This understanding illustrates why I believe that Obama's (10) and New York's (7) magazine size limits are unconstitutional. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter nearly all semi-automatic weapons and would do so to a degree which excessively infringed upon established constitutional rights of self-defense. When confronted by a home invader in the middle of the night, an individual is unlikely to employ the highest levels of accuracy. When confronted by a group of home invaders, an excessive magazine limit is inherently and irrefutably precarious. Excessive magazine limits are in fundamental contest with the basic protections of the second amendment.

2) Algeria. AQIM appears to have kidnapped a number of foreign energy workers in Algeria. I expect that the 1st SFOD-D ready-alert ''bowstring'' squadron is already half way across the Atlantic. AQIM would be well advised to release the hostages now. Delta Force doesn't mess around.

3) The French Military is engaged in serious fighting in Mali. French soldiers are well trained professionals and their current tasking is justified and necessary. But because European welfare states have sucked away EU defense spending, European militaries are terribly underfunded. As a result, their ISTAR capabilities have been seriously degraded. As in Libya, once again the US will have to fill in the gaps. EU defense policy is a joke.