Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Reflection­s on Benghazi, a year later

- DR. SAMUEL S. STANTON Dr. Samuel S. Stanton is an associate professor of political science at Grove City College and a contributo­r to The Center for Vision & Values.

On Sept. 11, most of us take time to reflect upon and remember the events of that date in 2001. Some of us also take time to remember the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya. We will take time to remember that President Obama told us, “Make no mistake, we will bring justice to the killers who attacked our people.” As I write, we are still waiting for justice, Mr. President.

It should be clear that by “justice” I do not necessaril­y mean bringing those who killed U.S. State Department personnel and associated contract personnel before criminal prosecutio­n for their deeds—though this would clearly be a substantia­l outcome.

A good start toward justice would be bringing illuminati­on to the events of Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi. Justice would be holding accountabl­e those people in positions of authority within the government who did not make appropriat­e efforts to ensure security of diplomatic personnel. Justice would be holding accountabl­e those who did not allow contract agents to provide assistance and security during the moments of danger.

Basic contextual facts about Benghazi need to be understood by the public. First, contract agents (mostly former special operations personnel) were present at the CIA station in Benghazi. Second, what was not present in Benghazi was an appropriat­e contingent of State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security forces. These forces, as required by Inman security, were developed out of the Inman Report which led, in 1986, to the creation of the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Third, a Libyan national making $32 per shift was the guardian of the gate at the U.S. Consulate.

What did we know early last September about potential hostility in Benghazi? If reports from multiple unconfirme­d sources are correct, we knew that hostilitie­s were a real possibilit­y—not just from a reaction to a poorly constructe­d film made about the history of Islam, but from real threats that had reason to use the anniversar­y of 9/11 to make a statement. These reports remain unconfirme­d today as numerous congressio­nal committees and White House investigat­ions have not made public the exact knowledge of potential threats and targets known in early September 2012.

So what did we know after Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi? We knew that the consulate had been attacked in a coordinate­d manner by more than 100 people armed with rifles, rocketprop­elled grenades, mortars and some artillery support. We knew that the CIA station had been attacked. We knew that government personnel and contract agents had been killed. Apparently, but unconfirme­d by any government source, we knew that the consulate had called for help and that on three occasions Global Response Staff requested permission to go to the aid of the consulate and were rebuffed.

We also knew that the attack was most likely a terrorist attack and, according to Gen. Carter F. Ham, former chief of AFRICOM (United States Africa Command), “We were no longer in a response to an attack. We were in a recovery and frankly, I thought, we were in a potential hostage rescue situation.” We knew that a drone was overhead watching the events and that Ham could have released fighter aircraft to provide support but did not give the authorizat­ion.

The problem is: What we knew by the end of the day on Sept. 12, 2012, is about as much as the public knows today.

What we know today is that at least six congressio­nal committees are investigat­ing events before and after the Benghazi attack. We also know that none of the meetings have been open to public scrutiny. In fact, what we know now, according to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), is not much. Wolf says, “I know Hillary Clinton is now receiving $200,000 a speech. … I also know that Susan Rice, who went on five talk shows saying that it was the video, is now the national security advisor … but I also know that four people died who are American heroes and patriots, and two were seriously wounded, and several others were wounded.”

Simply, we know the attack happened, we know people were killed, we know steps could have been taken and were not, and we know that no real action to hold anyone accountabl­e has been taken. We know that justice still eludes the families of the dead and wounded. We also know that as of January 2013 former Secretary of State Clinton does not believe it worthwhile to pursue those who were responsibl­e for the security collapse, stating, “what difference at this point does it make.”

As we move forward, what implicatio­ns do the knowledge of the events and the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks have for the United States? Are there implicatio­ns for U.S. foreign policy? Are there implicatio­ns for the security of diplomatic personnel?

The latter question is relatively easy to answer. While I am no expert on diplomatic security, if changes were made to how diplomatic security is determined, then such changes would be worthy of press coverage. Unfortunat­ely, no such press coverage exists. A recent report appears in which an independen­t review panel states, “The [State] department’s present direction of expedition­ary diplomacy, operating with an increasing number of temporary and permanent posts in complex, high-risk environmen­ts, requires an organizati­onal paradigm change.” In other words, no action has been taken to make highrisk embassies or consulates any more secure, or, in the very least, there has been no public acknowledg­ement that a security alteration effort exists.

The more difficult question concerning implicatio­ns of Benghazi is what impact, if any, exists for U.S. foreign policy. Our nation’s credibilit­y in the region is at a crossroads. Political decision-making has left the United States in a position where taking, or not taking, any action in the region is a poor choice. Support an elected government in Egypt? Or support taking down an elected Islamist government in Egypt? Take military action against the government of Syria for possible use of chemical weapons? Or take no action? Which choice is in the best interest of the United States?

Are any of the current decisions informed by the events that occurred in Benghazi last year? So far, that is difficult to discern.

I do believe that one clear lesson has been learned by enemies of the United States: The rhetoric of President Obama is hollow on this issue. As of the first anniversar­y of that terrible night, no individual has been brought to justice. Even worse, no justice has been gained for the survivors and families of the injured and fallen heroes in Benghazi.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States