Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations and its consequences. (Part I)

Link: Wikipedia entry for the Benghazi scandal.

Part I

The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in.  Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe.  When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world.  Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out.  As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller.  Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism.  In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard.  True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board.  The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions.  I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base.  I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat. 

As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead.  But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line.  And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer).  You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq.  Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other.  The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits.  The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest.  Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education.  A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished.  Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.

    

Link: CIA Chief disputes movie narrative on Benghazi.

Just in time for political primary season, a new film has been released appropriately titled, "Benghazi".  This film and its supporters make to bones about it; they are convinced that events on the evening of September 11, 2012, show the CIA to be probably culpable in the deaths that occurred that night at the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex.  Its been some time since we've had a good rehashing of this story, and I'd just as soon we didn't.  But this movie is spreading some very seriously allegations, which need to be addressed.  I have no intention of reliving the events of that night in their entirety.  Lets stick to the contentious issues raised by this movie.  On the night of September 11, 2012, both the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and the CIA Annex Building had come under attack by unknown heavily armed militants.  Aside from a few rank-and-file State Department and CIA personnel, the State Department had Diplomatic Security officers on hand, and the CIA had a group of Global Resource Solutions (GRS) operatives.  The movie in question was developed from a book written by four GRS employees who were at the CIA annex that night.  In fact, when they became aware that the Consulate, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and others were located, was under heavy fire.  These four GRS guys claim to have asked the CIA Chief of Station, who was sitting in the same room, for permission to deploy to the Consulate and assist.  According to "the four", the CIA Chief (named "Bob"), got off the phone, and told them to stand down on any order to relieve the Consulate.    We still have no clue who it was that Bob was allegedly speaking with that night.

After twenty minutes or so, the four GRS officers took it upon themselves to disobey a direct order and rush to assist at the Consulate.  Sadly, they arrived too late for Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith.  Later that night, the United States would lose two more heroes, but this movie seems to be mainly focused on what happened in the annex which delayed the GRS deployment.  First, let me remind everyone, that I wasn't on scene that night.  My comments and perceptions are derived exclusively from my experiences and training.  I am very familiar with GRS.  I have worked closely with GRS officers in the past.  You can't find a better-trained, more weapons-knowledgeable group of security personnel.  But I am concerned with their story.  Before we can really take a look at what happened in the annex, we must remind ourselves that CIA or no CIA, the Department of State has primacy on all decisions on U.S. diplomatic facilities, including military and security-related concerns.  I can't imagine why the CIA Chief would have cause to tell the GRS guys to "stand down".  If indeed that was the case, then he was passing on his instructions from a higher authority, and if things work as they are supposed to, at the end of that chain should have been Hillary Clinton.  But Bob claims that he said no such thing, and that his mind was on trying to round up enough local firepower to assist with returning to the Consulate.  I wonder if possibly there was a misunderstanding, given that one person was on the phone and the other four were anxious to go and help their friends. 

In the book, the Agency played its usual role of easy punching bag (its not like the CIA spends much time defending itself, although many of us wish it would).  I've chosen only to address the main allegation because three paragraphs is more than enough for this blog.  I do not believe that Bob (who I do not know) gave the GRS guys any "stand down" order that night, and if he did, I want to know why they chose this particular time to disobey a direct order from a superior.  Do GRS personnel normally ignore the instructions of CIA management?  What if Bob did say "stand down", because someone on the phone had informed him that U.S. personnel had been rescued and that the Consulate was overrun by militiamen.  Then the four GRS guys would be walking into serious shit. You don't disobey a Chief of Station, especially not in that situation.  I don't believe they did.  Because I don't believe Bob ever gave the order to "stand down".  

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Investigation.

Link: Email controversy and Benghazi continue to haunt Hillary Clinton.

It is beginning to seem as if the House of Representatives Committee investigating the Benghazi tragedy in which four Americans were murdered will never end.  The House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi was initially proposed by then-House Majority Leader John Boehner.  The first hearing held by the committee was in September 2014, which, when I make use of my superior math skills, means we have been subsidizing this investigation for over one year.  One year doesn't seem to be that long in my mind, compared to some of the other committees we have watched evolve on Capitol Hill, but I am curious what goal this particular committee is trying to reach.  It would seem to me that we know the pertinent details regarding the events of the Benghazi terrorist attack, including what occurred in the hours beforehand.  For many months, various different and often false versions of what occurred that night in Benghazi have been disseminated by the mainstream press both in the United States and abroad.  Unfortunately, even today, most people don't know even the basic facts regarding what transpired that evening.  Here are those facts, at least the ones that I'm comfortable saying are accurate.

The 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack involved two separate locations.  The initial attack was directed at the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, and the second attack occurred at an Annex that was utilized by the CIA, who had the largest contingent of U.S. personnel in the city.  The attack began just after U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, had concluded a meeting with a Turkish diplomat.  Just prior to the assault on the compound, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland noted to himself that the streets outside the Consulate seemed very quiet and empty.   Unexpectedly, the Consulate compound was quickly assaulted by armed groups, and the complete lack of a sufficient number of State Department Security personnel became obvious.  At the time of the assault, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland directed Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an Information Management Specialist, to utilize the main Consulate building's "Safe Haven".  Safe Havens are areas particularly designated for shelter and safety in just such a situation.  S/A Strickland stayed with Stevens and Smith in the Safe Haven, while a few other security personnel left the main building to retrieve their M4 rifles and other equipment.  The attackers entered the main building, and after unsuccessfully attempting to break into the Safe Haven, began to pour petrol on the floor and set fires.  Strickland decided it was best to leave the building, and instructing Stevens and Smith to follow, climbed out a bathroom window.  As the smoke intensified, Strickland waited for both Stevens and Smith, neither of whom followed.  Strickland proceeded to the roof of the Consulate and attempted to radio other State Department security officers.  Later Smith's body was discovered, as he had apparently succumbed to smoke inhalation.  Stevens was discovered by friendly locals, who transported him to the hospital in the hope of saving his life.  Although the locals claim that Stevens was alive when he was discovered, the Hospital staff declared the Ambassador deceased as a result of smoke inhalation, after ninety minutes of attempted resuscitation.  As for the various rumors that persist regarding the possibility that Stevens was physically assaulted before his death, I have no comment.

The second incident occurred at an Annex roughly a mile from the Consulate compound, which was being used by the CIA.  Just after midnight, the Annex came under attack.  Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, CIA contractors hired as security personnel, were at the Annex.  They defended their position for hours from the roof, before a mortar round hit in close proximity and killed Woods.  As Doherty attempted to take cover, another round, part of the same barrage, killed Doherty instantly.  For many months I lived under the incorrect assumption that the four heroes who died in Benghazi had perished together, in the same location.  Actually, the incidents that took the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty, occurred at two separate locations and at different times.

Immediately following the tragedy, the Obama Administration was heavily criticized for blaming the attacks on a "spontaneous demonstration of anger as a result of the U.S. distribution of a film which some Muslims believe to be sacrilegious".  Allegedly, regular citizens of Benghazi, angered by the release of this film (assuming, of course, that the Muslim population of Benghazi is pious), spontaneously retrieved automatic weapons, machine guns, and grenade launchers, and rushed out to attack the U.S. Consulate, and later the Consulate Annex.  The obvious question the morning after the attack, is why didn't the State Department have more security personnel in place, and second, why weren't additional military resources brought in?  The Administration, by blaming the attack on the unexpected release of this film and the "spontaneous" expression of anger on the part of Benghazi Muslims, wanted to avoid blame for not having adequate security measures in place.  In other words, "people died because this movie really pissed off the Muslims, who unexpectedly sacked the Consulate; it had nothing to do with not having a valid security plan."  Actually, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on that particular day to review plans for a new cultural center and to modernize a hospital; he was also tasked with preparing a report on security issues related to the transition of the Consulate from a temporary facility to a permanent one. 

The reason why Hillary Clinton has been her own worst enemy throughout this Benghazi crisis is her apparent inability to accept blame for anything.  It will eventually be her political undoing.  Most Americans, myself included, waited to hear the Secretary of State hold a news conference to discuss Benghazi.  The American people wanted to hear Hillary comment that a terrible tragedy had occurred which resulted in the painful loss of four American heroes.  Hillary needed to assure the American people that no stone would go unturned to locate and bring to justice the persons responsible and that a full investigation would take place to make sure this terrible event would never happen again.  She needed to say, "but regardless of the particular details, I am Secretary of State, and the responsibility for those people who lost their lives rests with me."  Instead, we got distraction, diversion, and pointed fingers.  The American people wanted to know why an American Ambassador was running around in a warzone without adequate security.  They want to know why U.S. Consulate employees (Sean Smith) were working in a hostile warzone without the necessary protection.  We've heard a few attempts at answers, and not surprisingly one of the excuses laid the blame at the feet of President George W. Bush.  As for the committee itself, there can be no doubt that the GOP is using this investigation to drill as many holes into Hillary's presidential ambitions as possible.  The real damage may not come from Benghazi, but from a tangential issue that popped up during the committee's investigation: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct official business, and, at times, pass confidential information.  I think we can expect to see the Benghazi investigation begin to fade, as the "emailgate" springs to life.