Rep. Darrell Issa blasted (click here) the State Department for not taking
disciplinary action on four employees who were cited as having “a lack
of proactive leadership” in the run-up to the attack last year on the
U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, responding to a letter from State in response to his query about the status of the four employees, called the delayed decision on the four employees a “charade that included false reports of firings and resignations and now ends in a game of musical chairs where no one misses a single day on the State Department payroll.”...
What was occurring in Libya were determinations by militia leaders to take a path of self-protection and to remove any person viewed as a potential threat to bring back a dictatorship. The USA had a strong connection to Libya regardless of Gaddafi's reputation to the people of Libya. To the militias fighting to remove Gaddafi and ultimately leading to his death, they were the ones most vested in the outcome. They didn't want the USA to proclaim victory on their dime. There were many Libyan militia members that died in the conflict. It was their right to conduct the country without oppression.
Ambassador Stevens was an optimist and determined to have a relationship with the people and the new government. Unknown to him and other intelligence within Libya, there were decisions being made moment by moment by militia leaders. That is not possible to track.
The militias were relying on the only priorities they knew and that was of their religious basis and their history with Libya's dictator. In many ways, the State Department was HOPING Libyan officials (ie: new central government) would be able to deliver the country to a state of stability immediately after Gaddafi was assassinated. One could say that was naive, but, the USA knew the people of Libya. They were the ones it relied on as steadfast as an ally.
What the USA did not expect is the same of what they did not expect in Iraq, complete breakdown of authority to provide protection to our ambassador and his staff. The changes in Libyan authority was becoming more diffuse and not more stable.
Ambassador Stevens was in Libya without reservation to the actual reality changing around him. The reason he was without reservation and believing Benghazi was a better alternative to Tripoli was because the intelligence was bad. I think I said that from the start. But, to state that means USA intelligence could actually assess what was occurring is a gross assumption. It could not. The USA intelligence in Libya was unaware of the rapidly deteriorating circumstances and unable to formulate correct assessments. The 'action' in Libya was in transition and not measurable.
One only knew the reality of Libya by living it. That is why Ambassador Stevens asked for more security, but, there was nothing concrete to facilitate the reality that was Libya at that point. The reality was the only safer environment in Libya was in Tripoli and at best that was still dangerous. Stevens wanted Benghazi as an alternate consulate sight. He was too willing to believe all could be contained.
The deaths were tragic, sudden and heinous. There was no predicting them. The State Department employees have a right to finish their careers with the records of dedication they have and they have a right to do that within their record of employment.
Secretary Kerry is correct and anything more than that is a witch hunt without a witch to find.
I believe Ambassador Stevens and his staff are among the most brave the USA has within it's diplomatic corp. I have great sympathy to all that love him. But, bravery is not all that is required sometimes. Volatile circumstances have no definition to allow the best judgement. Ambassador Stevens acted on what he knew and he simply didn't know enough at that time. No one did.
Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, responding to a letter from State in response to his query about the status of the four employees, called the delayed decision on the four employees a “charade that included false reports of firings and resignations and now ends in a game of musical chairs where no one misses a single day on the State Department payroll.”...
What was occurring in Libya were determinations by militia leaders to take a path of self-protection and to remove any person viewed as a potential threat to bring back a dictatorship. The USA had a strong connection to Libya regardless of Gaddafi's reputation to the people of Libya. To the militias fighting to remove Gaddafi and ultimately leading to his death, they were the ones most vested in the outcome. They didn't want the USA to proclaim victory on their dime. There were many Libyan militia members that died in the conflict. It was their right to conduct the country without oppression.
Ambassador Stevens was an optimist and determined to have a relationship with the people and the new government. Unknown to him and other intelligence within Libya, there were decisions being made moment by moment by militia leaders. That is not possible to track.
The militias were relying on the only priorities they knew and that was of their religious basis and their history with Libya's dictator. In many ways, the State Department was HOPING Libyan officials (ie: new central government) would be able to deliver the country to a state of stability immediately after Gaddafi was assassinated. One could say that was naive, but, the USA knew the people of Libya. They were the ones it relied on as steadfast as an ally.
What the USA did not expect is the same of what they did not expect in Iraq, complete breakdown of authority to provide protection to our ambassador and his staff. The changes in Libyan authority was becoming more diffuse and not more stable.
Ambassador Stevens was in Libya without reservation to the actual reality changing around him. The reason he was without reservation and believing Benghazi was a better alternative to Tripoli was because the intelligence was bad. I think I said that from the start. But, to state that means USA intelligence could actually assess what was occurring is a gross assumption. It could not. The USA intelligence in Libya was unaware of the rapidly deteriorating circumstances and unable to formulate correct assessments. The 'action' in Libya was in transition and not measurable.
One only knew the reality of Libya by living it. That is why Ambassador Stevens asked for more security, but, there was nothing concrete to facilitate the reality that was Libya at that point. The reality was the only safer environment in Libya was in Tripoli and at best that was still dangerous. Stevens wanted Benghazi as an alternate consulate sight. He was too willing to believe all could be contained.
The deaths were tragic, sudden and heinous. There was no predicting them. The State Department employees have a right to finish their careers with the records of dedication they have and they have a right to do that within their record of employment.
Secretary Kerry is correct and anything more than that is a witch hunt without a witch to find.
I believe Ambassador Stevens and his staff are among the most brave the USA has within it's diplomatic corp. I have great sympathy to all that love him. But, bravery is not all that is required sometimes. Volatile circumstances have no definition to allow the best judgement. Ambassador Stevens acted on what he knew and he simply didn't know enough at that time. No one did.
