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.

Before – During – After; Benghazi and why Truth makes a difference.

‘’Who’s tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-Fil-A lovers.’’

The Washington Post is better than those words.

Four Americans died in Benghazi. Albeit temporarily, we lost a diplomatic compound to a group of terrorists.

Facing this reality, you’d think we’d want to leave no stone unturned- that endeavor in the pursuit of facts would overwhelm narrow partisan agendas. But this is Washington. And Washington being Washington, the partisan shields are up and the spin turbines are running at full power.

Yet, this obfuscation must not dissuade us from scrutiny. For three key reasons, our examination of the Benghazi attack is a continuing necessity.

1)      The security failure that preceded the attack.
In the run up to the day of the attack, September 11^th 2012, the threat environment in Benghazi was severe. The Consulate was operating in a precarious post-conflict environment. A terrorist presence was obvious and ongoing. Consider the following record. In June 2012, while traveling through Benghazi, the UK Ambassador’s convoy was ambushed and two of his bodyguards injured. In response, the UK removed British diplomats later that month. In August 2012, after suffering a number of violent incidents, the Red Cross also evacuated their staff. The US mission to Benghazi had also been a focus for regular attacks.

Clearly, the danger was considerable.

It’s true; the State Department serves America in a challenging world. Understandably, security decisions must balance threat assessments with available resources. Achieving total protection for every diplomatic outpost is impossible. But even accepting the great benefit of hindsight, far greater security should have been availed to the Benghazi mission. Instead, security requests from the Consulate to Washington were met with delay, rejection or absurdity.

We need to know who dropped the ball. We need to know whether or not Secretary Clinton was briefed on the threats and security requests. We need to fully understand why these failures took place.

2)  The failure to re-enforce the Consulate during the attack

The Department of Defense’s response to the Benghazi attack was woeful. We had forces ready to launch an immediate-action rescue operation. Yet, to the team’s great consternation, their deployment was denied. An extraordinary decision. We need to know why, after years of unrestrained, unqualified and ultimate commitment, America’s testament- ‘leave no man behind’, was thrown into the fire.

But our questions can’t end here.

We also need answers as to why after 10 years of proximate war, we still lack the meaningful capacity to respond to MENA crisis events? Why does US force posture remain so predicated upon defending a Western Europe which refuses to defend itself? We also need clarification for another relevant question; one of executive leadership. Why, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, did President Obama decide to go on a fundraising trip instead of managing the crisis from the White House? Regarding Benghazi, the President’s main contention has always been that the facts weren’t clear early on. If so, why didn’t he stay in Washington to find those facts?

3)  The post-Benghazi talking points

In the aftermath of a terrorist attack, the effective management of intelligence material is absolutely critical. It’s also a task of extreme complexity. Hearsay blends with eyewitness accounts, eyewitness accounts are blurred by personal inflections and every source must be framed objectively. Only then, can intelligence data be assessed and offered to policy makers as an informational product. However, when politicians intervene at the assessment stage, truth becomes subjective.

Before last November’s election, the Obama Administration claimed they hadn’t influenced the Intelligence’s Community’s Benghazi related talking points in a major way. Last week we received proof that this statement wasn’t true.

At present, the Administration’s answers simply don’t add up.

For a start, consider last week’s testimony by State’s former top security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom. Under oath, Nordstrom stated that the Libyan investigation of the attack was complicated by the US Government’s unwillingness to identify those responsible. Yet, this statement conflicts with the excuse given by Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, to remove talking points on the suspects (an action Rhodes claimed was necessary for investigative reasons). That’s not all. Along with Nordstrom’s testimony, we also now have evidence that the FBI had few concerns over the original talking point drafts. Drafts, which as Stephen Hayes notes, were the result of confident intelligence estimates. Taking this information together, a concerning picture arises- was the Administration seeking excuses to manage the domestic political fallout of the attack? In essence, was the intelligence community being used as a pawn to spin the Sunday news circuit?

Consider some further context. We know that the #2 US diplomat in Libya during the attack, Gregory Hicks, was ‘stunned’ by Susan Rice’s Sunday comments. But what about Hicks’ submission that he was pressured not to talk with Congressional investigators and second, by Nordstrom’s statement that the State Department’s Benghazi investigation failed to interview certain key officials. Now Hicks (a highly regarded professional) believes he’s being punished for his honesty. Combined with the news that other whistleblowers are ready to come forwards, it’s obvious that we need to ask further questions. Again, the Obama Administration might claim we’re delusional conspiracy theorists, but let’s face it; their record in this area is far from stellar.

In the end, the importance of our questions is certain. It’s unquestionably evident that major failings occurred in Benghazi before, during and after the attack. It’s also unmistakably clear that our present understanding of what happened is insufficient.

We should always remember that indifference to truth isn’t just the greatest enemy of democracy, it’s also fundamentally un-American. It’s a civic responsibility to ask questions. It’s the responsibility of a democratic government to provide honest answers.

Especially when citizens have died in the service of democracy.

If interested, check out some of my other thoughts on MENA related security issues.

Benghazi and Gun Control

A couple of thoughts today -

1) Benghazi

The independent investigation into the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi has been released. The report notes that there were major security threats in the weeks and months that lead up to the attack. As I have previously argued, these threats suggested the need to improve the US security posture in Benghazi. Unfortunately this need was ignored. And Americans died. This incompetence was unacceptable and it's therefore appropriate that relevant State Department officials resigned. Diplomats risking their lives for their country deserve and require the support of their country. President Obama's Administration was asleep on this issue.

2) Gun Control

For my thoughts on post-Newtown gun control - see the last two posts on this blog.

President Obama's gun control task force has the potential to engage seriously and realistically on the issue. Or it can gravitate towards the liberal authoritarian wing of the Democratic Party and make suggestions that are doomed to failure.

Benghazi and the Obama Administration

The Benghazi security scandal has become a major problem for the Obama Administration. Not just in a political sense, but also in terms of honesty. After the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, the Administration was quick to suggest that the assault had simply been a mob reaction to the 'Innocence of Muslims' youtube video. Incidentally - the fact that the 'Innocence of Muslims' is still on youtube and yet the protests have now halted, provides strong evidence to support the suggestion that the video was not the underlying factor in the protesters motivation.

In reference to Benghazi, the problem with the Obama Administration is clear. In the aftermath of the attack, Administration officials ran to affirm that the attack was not a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, Obama's UN Ambassador, was the most senior official to do so. Even after intelligence sources were pointing to an prior organized attack, Rice persisted in arguing that the intelligence she had seen suggested that a random mob was responsible. There is a serious problem inherent in accepting the full veracity of this proposition.

As former CIA Director, Michael Hayden, explains, faced with a full scale armed attack on a high threat environment US diplomatic facility on 9/11, it is almost inconceivable to believe that the intelligence community would have been comfortable with the easy labeling of the act as video rather than terrorist connected. As Haden notes, the Obama Administration had an obvious political interest in purveying confidence of mob rather than terrorist responsibility. 

As anyone with knowledge of the intelligence process understands, intelligence assessments are predicated on the 'intelligence cycle'. This cycle relies upon a comprehensive process of collection, evaluation, analysis and application. In essence, intelligence officers seek to maximize their range of sources and conduct a varied, intensive analysis of any material available. In this sense, it seems almost certain that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence briefers would have disclosed to their consumers (senior Administration officials) at least the possibility that the Benghazi attack was far more than a mob action. Indeed, the fact that we now know the attack was terrorist related, provides strong circumstantial evidence that any original intelligence briefings which suggested a possible mob reaction as responsible, would have been graded as 'low confidence' assessments. 

I would submit that it is evident that Obama Administration officials mischaracterized the original intelligence.

        
      Sadly the story doesn't end here. In the Debate earlier this week, Vice President Biden stated that the Administration had not been made aware of cable requests from Libya for greater security. Security requests that were turned down. It is true that the President and Vice-President may not have been aware of these concerns. However, if there was any doubt about authorizing more security, the requests should have been pushed up the chain of authority. Again in the least worst scenario, the Administration was incompetent.

The reason that the Benghazi attack is so important is obvious and profound. Americans serving their country requested more security and didn't get it. And then they were killed. From the first days following the attack, the Obama Administration has reacted with false certainty, confusion and attempts at distraction (Biden changing Benghazi topic to Iraq during VP debate). The questions that need to be answered are clear. What did senior Administration officials (including the President/Vice President) know? When did they know? Was/is there a deliberate attempt to hide the full truth as it became/becomes clear? 

We know that the President has a flexible attention to his intelligence briefings, he didn't attend a single one in the week before the attack. Thus, the simple question remains- has the Administration behaved with incompetence or deception? The American people deserve honest answers.

Violent protests - What America should do

Sadly it appears that the 'film protests' are continuing unabated. The US Embassy in Yemen is currently under attack and protests are continuing outside our embassy in Cairo. The United States is now being directly challenged. Iran, Assad, Hizballah, Al Qa'ida and every other group that hates America are now watching to see what we do. Here's what we should do.

1) The President should order the deployment of military reinforcements to secure our diplomatic facilities in the region. He has currently sent FAST units, however, this may not be sufficient. The US has considerable military assets in the EUCOM and CENTCOM areas of operation. We should not be afraid to utilize these assets as necessary.Our response should also involve tightening security procedures at diplomatic facilities in states like Indonesia and Pakistan - which may face protests after tomorrow's Friday prayers. The key is that we ensure we are able to protect our diplomats and our facilities. Secretary of State Clinton must require that host nation security forces are provided to defend our diplomats. 

2) The President should unequivocally (and angrily) condemn the violent reaction that has followed reporting on this film. His speech yesterday was not sufficient. There is no excuse for the kind of violence that we have seen. This film was produced by a private group of individuals in the conduct of free speech. Free speech defines America. We must stand up for this right while emphasizing that the US govt. had nothing to do with the film. Where there is positive regard for the United States in the Middle East, in large part this feeling stems from a high regard for our freedoms. The President must condemn those who violently protest as morally pathetic human beings. They need to be called out for their repellent ideology.

3) The President should take substantive action to bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi bombing. This should include the application of military force if targets can be identified (for example in the Libyan desert). The US is currently appearing impotent and weak in the Middle East. From my perspective, this is in part a result of the President's appearance of timidity on Iran. Whether this is a fair perception or not, appearance is as, if not more important than reality when it comes to Middle Eastern political dynamics.

This is somewhat personal to me, my father was a diplomat with State and my grandfather was a US Marine. We need to make sure we protect our citizens.