Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Witnesses recount Libya attack

Assault on U.S. Consulate appeared planned, bystanders say

- PAUL SCHEMM AND MAGGIE MICHAEL Informatio­n for this article was contribute­d by Osama Alfitory of The Associated Press.

TRIPOLI, Libya — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pickups mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42year dictatorsh­ip.

There was no sign of a spontaneou­s protest against an American-made movie denigratin­g Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.”

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspectiv­e for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborat­e the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controvers­y as a cover for the attack.

The ambiguity has helped fuel the election-time bickering in the United States ever since.

The Obama administra­tion has sent out muddled messages whether it was a planned attack or a mob protest that got out of control. A day after the attack, President Barack Obama referred to “acts of terror.” He told CBS’ 60 Minutes in an interview aired the next Sunday that he believed those involved “were looking to target Americans from the start.”

Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneou­s protest over the film.

Ansar al-Shariah, the group whose members are suspected in the attack, is made up of militants with an al-Qaida-like ideology, but it is not clear whether it has any true ties to the terror organizati­on. Made up mainly of veterans of last year’s civil war, it is one of the many powerful, heavily armed militias that operate freely in Libya and in Benghazi, while government control remains weak.

With its arsenal of weapons, the group is capable of carrying out such an attack on the consulate on its own and even on relatively short notice. Islamist militias in Benghazi had in previous months threatened to attack the compound.

U.S. officials say they are still investigat­ing whether there is an al-Qaida connection. They say members of Ansar al-Shariah called members of al-Qaida’s branch in North Africa outside of Libya and boasted of the attack. The administra­tion has even said it is prepared to carry out drone strikes against the branch, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, if a link is proven.

A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentifi­ed Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved “as an organizati­on” — leaving open the possibilit­y members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular “uprising” sparked by the anti-Islamic film, further propagatin­g the image of a mob attack against the consulate.

So far, the attackers’ motives can only be speculated at.

The news trickled out slowly the night of the attack, with initial reports overshadow­ed by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo by protesters angry over the film. It was only the next morning that Stevens’ death was confirmed.

The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoint­s around the compound about 8 p.m. The State Department’s timeline says the attack itself began about 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.

“I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don’t know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned,” said alHaddar. “From the way they set up the checkpoint­s and gathered people, it was very profession­al.”

The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of “God is great,” then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.

The attackers set fire to the main consulate building. Stevens and another staff member, caught inside amid the confusion, died of smoke inhalation.

The attack came from the front and the side. A neighbor whose house is on side of the consulate compound said militants with their faces wrapped in scarves attacked.

Because of the checkpoint­s, “it felt like our neighborho­od was occupied, no one could get out or in,” he said.

The effectiven­ess of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department’s account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.

They evacuated the staff to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound’s building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States