...The Pentagon had no forces (click here) that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis unfolded. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There are no armed drones thought to be within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea. The Africa Command, whose area of operation includes North Africa, also did not have on hand its own force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F. Every other regional combatant command had one at the time....
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 9:12 AM
The attack on the Obama Administration by Republicans was about politics, so if they pretend to actually be interested in reinforcing the security of State Department Assets; it is a lie. Let's get that straight first. It was Secretary Clinton insisting on an official investigation.
I am sure the recommendations made since the four deaths regarding security of State Department Assets by Secretary Clinton are more than adequate in updating the security protocols. The severeness of the report proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Secretary Clinton was serious about exposing failures within State Department security.
That is respect for human life, by the way. Not politics. She wanted all failures to be exposed to benefit the people within her responsibility and those in the future. Her priorities in ordering this investigation is above reproach.
That said.
There is a truth not identified in the Pickering Report. The diplomatic mission in Benghazi was premature. The consulate in Tripoli was the correct focus for USA involvement. The Benghazi issue was sincerely more the need of a military instillation than a consulate of any kind and the USA within NATO was not going to put troops on the ground. Libya isn't that large a country and there were not that many Americans in the country to justify two consulates.
Even today, I don't understand Ambassador Christopher's willingness to be in Benghazi knowing he was at risk.
There were also many, many unknowns in Benghazi, Libya. The militias were still active in the country and the central government, although established with help of the USA State Department (Secretary Clinton recognized those authorities very early into the Libya Revolution), was still struggling with the incorporation of militias into their military. Basically, Libya was a very dangerous place. Even today the current government is finding it difficult to function well enough.
Last Modified: 31 Oct 2012 14:22
Protesters have stormed Libya's national assembly, forcing the cancellation of a vote on a proposed coalition government named by the country's new prime minister, just hours earlier.
Fewer than 100 people, made up of civilians and former rebel fighters, charged into the meeting hall of the General National Congress on Tuesday as it voted on Ali Zeidan's cabinet line-up, which was drawn from both liberal and Islamist parties.
In chaotic televised scenes, with the protesters unhappy with some of the nominations, congress members persuaded them to leave.
Voting then briefly resumed before being interrupted a second time, prompting congress leader Mohammed Magarief to announce the session was postponed to Wednesday.
"Let it be known to all Libyans and to the whole world what conditions we are working in, " Magarief said....
At least the protesters are former rebel fighters. I think that might be reason for hope. The current President was once a Benghazi resident.
I am not at all sure, the USA has ever had a mission in a country as unstable as Libya immediately after a revolution. This was a fresh as diplomatic ground gets. I hope the report is instructive to the State Department in handling it's responsibility toward it's Ambassadors, regardless, of their own priorities and demands for influence within any country. Ambassador Stevens was too willing to enter a dangerous country. And Libya was and is still very dangerous. He did so while believing he could trust the people and the benevolence of their new freedom. There is a level of naive willingness to face danger without the benefit of sincere security which needs to be restructured among our ambassadors.
I doubt the late Richard Holbrooke would be so willing to expose a mission to such instability. He would balance the need for involvement with realizing the value of living to make a difference.
Ambassador Stevens is a profound loss within our State Department. He will be missed. To that reality our diplomatic corp needs to value themselves far more than the willingness to make a difference.
We need ambassadors, not martyrs.
The Ambassador Stevens of the world are few and far between. He could not afford to allow his death out of frustration with lack of his personal security. He should have been mad as hell about any safety compromise inhibiting his mission. Maybe. Just maybe if the State Department is mad as hell often enough their budget demands may even be honored.
