The Accountability Review Board—established to investigate
the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other
Americans dead—was not equivocal about its findings: Hillary Clinton’s State
Department suffered from “systematic” mismanagement, “leadership failures” and
“gross security lapses.” Most people still want to blame Barack Obama and UN
ambassador Susan Rice, but this almost smacks of racial bias. As a sop to
Clinton’s hurt feelings after her failure to win the 2008 presidential
primaries, she was allowed to run the State Department as her personal fiefdom,
filling it with as many sycophants and disciples as possible. She was
apparently too busy setting “records” like visiting every country on the planet,
and insuring that programs that advanced her gender agenda received proper
attention.
Otherwise, Clinton’s record is a sorry mishmash of nothingness.
Why did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slobber Clinton with praise
recently in a video released by the Saban Center for Middle East Studies? Because
she apparently supports the “hands-off” approach to “peace” in the Middle East.
In documents released last week, the Benghazi investigating board
found that there was no delay in the administration’s response to events on the
ground during and after the attack, or denied required assistance. Yet the
report heavily criticized the State Department for its actions before the
attack. The department was overrun with
“serious bureaucratic mismanagement” was primarily responsible for “inadequate
security” at the Benghazi mission where the ambassador died of smoke inhalation
after it was set afire: "Systematic failures and leadership and management
deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted
in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and
grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."
While the board specifically blamed the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS) and the Bureau of Near East Affairs (NEA)—both under the
direction of the State Department— for an inability to reach agreement on the
proper protective presence in Benghazi, it seemed loath to place blame on any one
person, only suggesting “disciplinary” action for such conduct in the future.
The board admitted that the attacks were “unanticipated” in
their scope and intensity. Nevertheless, it states that
Overall, the number of
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the
attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite
repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for
additional staffing. Board members found a pervasive realization among
personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high
priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially
those relating to staffing. The insufficient Special Mission security platform
was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB)
standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also
severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment,
although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security
upgrades.
Libya—and the Middle East generally—is part of a never-ending
headache for U.S. diplomacy. One ought to think that by now there is a
generally understood protocol on how to insure the safety of American
diplomats. The problem in Benghazi—and the rest of Libya—is that there is still
no centralized authority, and the city is still little more than a lawless
outpost. Another problem pointed out by the report was that there was a
revolving door of personnel at the U.S. mission, and military security
personnel were only present on a TDY (temporary duty) basis. This lack of a
sustained presence meant that the personnel were not there long enough to fully
understand and identify potential local threats.
Although Americans were welcomed initially in Benghazi
during the revolutionary phase, afterwards the security situation deteriorated,
and string of “security incidents” plagued international diplomats and
organizations. The Americans depended on local security, which proved to be unreliable.
The attack on the U.S. compound began only minutes after a security vehicle
outside the compound was “recalled” by the local ruling council—supposedly to
prevent “civilian casualties.” This suggests, of course, that there was foreknowledge
of the attack that was not passed on to the Americans. Yet even in the
knowledge of a deteriorating security situation, the report found that
However, in DS, NEA,
and at post, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was
responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security
considerations. The DS Bureau showed a lack of proactive senior leadership with
respect to Benghazi, failing to ensure that the priority security needs of a
high risk, high threat post were met. At the same time, with attention in late
2011 shifting to growing crises in Egypt and Syria, the NEA Bureau’s front
office showed a lack of ownership of Benghazi’s security issues, and a tendency
to rely totally on DS for the latter.
What is being suggested here? Is “proactive senior
leadership” referring to Clinton and her deputies? Why was it a mistake to rely
on the State Department to insure that proper security was being met?
Although a full
complement of five DS agents for Benghazi was initially projected, and later
requested multiple times, Special Mission Benghazi achieved a level of five DS
agents (not counting DoD-provided TDY Site Security Team personnel sent by
Embassy Tripoli) for only 23 days between January 1-September 9, 2012. As it
became clear that DS would not provide a steady complement of five TDY DS
agents to Benghazi, expectations on the ground were lowered by the daunting
task of gaining approvals and the reality of an ever-shifting DS personnel
platform. From discussions with former Benghazi-based staff, Board members
concluded that the persistence of DS leadership in Washington in refusing to
provide a steady platform of four to five DS agents created a resignation on
the part of post about asking for more.
While Obama (and, absurdly, Susan Rice) have taken a great
deal of the heat on the Benghazi tragedy, we shouldn’t dismiss his assertion
that he was not informed of the security situation confronting the Benghazi
mission. The above finding suggests that the State Department decided that
staffing the Benghazi mission was of a low priority, and did not take seriously
the requests for additional security.
Who was ultimately responsible for this? Wasn’t it the
“boss,” Hillary Clinton? Rock star Hillary has been praised to High Heaven for
her “competency” and “experience.” In fact what the Benghazi report actually
says is that Clinton didn’t pay attention to the minutia of her job, did not
have a grasp for the delicacies of diplomacy, was completely unprepared to
handle the responsibilities given her, and her inexperience in foreign
affairs—which has inexplicably “enhanced” her reputation. At same time her failures and lack of a
single notable accomplishment has been deflected from her to Obama.
Clinton was scheduled to appear before a Congressional
hearing on the report, but suddenly “canceled” the appointment due to a
“fainting spell” that caused her to fall to the ground and hit her head,
resulting in a “concussion.” Or so it is claimed. In a press release, Clinton rather
meekly thanked the board for its “clear-eyed” judgments—meaning it didn’t blame
her specifically, in fact her name
was only mentioned once—and suggested that she would carry out its suggestions.
This all should have been front page news, but it wasn’t. The Seattle
Times hid it on the inside page in the “miscellaneous” news column. CNN
barely mentioned it. Fox News took the opportunity to heap more criticism on
Obama and Rice. And who comes out of this smelling like a rose instead of
something foul? This story should be a major stain on Clinton’s reputation and
suggest that there are serious questions about her competence. But her “rock
star” status and gender politics has once more shielded her from the many
failures of her tenure in office. She cannot point to a single accomplishment
or initiative she can call her own that has made this a safer, more secure world.
And that is the simple truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment