Lara Logan At 60 Minutes Via Youtube-More on Benghazi

October 27, 2013November 17, 2013 / chr1 / 1 Comment

Update: How reliable is that British contractor, anyways?

Logan interviews a British soldier hired to provide security to our mission in Benghazi, who was on-scene in the weeks leading-up to and during the attack.

Full embedded video can be viewed here at Legal Insurrection (addition: or CBS).

My takeaway, for what it’s worth: There were plenty of direct warnings that Benghazi was highly unsafe, and that the American mission there was specifically being targeted by Al Qaeda and enemy forces. It was very risky to be there at that point, with unreliable, local security forces, relatively un-secure locations, and with Al Qaeda flags flying all over town.

After both the attack and the order to stand down during the attack, I suspect official messages given to the American public were part of a larger strategy: To forward liberal internationalist policy and keep the administration’s goals in view. They wanted to keep a lid on things, and not provoke other uprisings which were going on at the time throughout the Middle-East. Basically, the State department didn’t want to rock the boat too much and was directed to continue the PR campaign to soothe the Arab Street in order to further the idea of democratic activism and grass-roots Arab-Spring civil unrest. The U.S. and its military needed to be seen as a non-threatening force, subsuming itself to International institutions as well as carrots and sticks for democracy promotion.

Basically, I attribute very risky decision-making and possible incompetence for our decision to still be there under those conditions. Perhaps there were other operations going on, as you never get all the facts, and it seems Chris Stevens was particularly dedicated. I attribute incompetence and possibly other motives regarding the decision to stand-down and the ‘not a planned attack’ response the administration gave to the American people. This could range from aggressively staying-on-message (look at Syria and Iran, as this administration’s proven to hold particularly idealistic objectives and a lack of strategy) to poor leadership to political calculation and maintaining the appearance of meeting political objectives despite obvious contrary evidence.

Tell me what I’m missing!

Any thoughts and comments are welcome

See previous posts below which indicate that if there was a cover-up, it likely has as much to do with CIA operations in the area.

Update: See what’s become a very embarrassing story for Lara Logan: Via Mediaite: CBS 60 Minutes’ Lara Logan Apologizes for Erroneous Benghazi Survivor Report: ‘We Were Wrong’

Addition: Thanks for the link: Eli Lake at the Daily Beast: Benghazi’s Al Qaeda Connection.

Conor Friedersdorf At The Atlantic-’The Attack In Benghazi: Worth Investigating After All’

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates’ From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest Online: ‘Obama’s War’…From The WSJ: “Allies Rally To Stop Gadhafi”…From March 27th, 2009 At WhiteHouse.Gov: Remarks By The President On A New Strategy For Afghanistan And Pakistan…From The New Yorker: ‘How Qaddafi Lost Libya’…

Just how far Left is this administration anyways? Is Bernhard Henri-Levy actually influencing U.S. policy decisions..? From New York Magazine: ‘European Superhero Quashes Libyan Dictator’…Bernhard Henri-Levy At The Daily Beast: ‘A Moral Tipping Point’…Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others…

Conor Friedersdorf At The Atlantic-‘The Attack In Benghazi: Worth Investigating After All’

August 2, 2013August 2, 2013 / chr1 / 1 Comment

Full piece here.

There’s probably a cover-up here, but as discussed, it’s likely got much more to do with CIA operations in Benghazi. Perhaps they were putting a lid on radical Islamist factions gathering within the power vacuum of post-Gadhfi Benghazi and points east, or trying to run guns elsewhere, including Syria.

As this blog noted, Eli Lake was on this a while ago:

Full piece here.

‘The honor given behind closed doors to “Bob,” the officer who was in charge of the Benghazi intelligence annex and CIA base that was attacked in the early morning of September 12, 2012 and then abandoned for nearly three weeks, illustrates the murky lines of command that preceded the attack, and helped make it a politically volatile issue. While the State Department was responsible for elements of the security for the diplomatic mission at Benghazi, the mission itself was used primarily for intelligence activities and most the U.S. officials there and at the nearby annex were CIA officers who used State Department cover.’

Walter Russell Mead’s take on Benghazi:

‘A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that more than half of Americans believe the Obama administration is covering up over Benghazi, and that a narrow plurality also thinks the congressional GOP is in on the whole fiasco for political gain. That seems about right to us.’

———————————-

Surprise!:

-Al Qaida doesn’t appear to be ‘on the run,’ as the State Department has issued a travel (alert) for Americans, and those jailbreaks in Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan appear to be coordinated. A return to realism would be nice, but where are the James Baker types in the Republican Party? Are we even the same country anymore and what problems would hard-core Westphalian realists face?

Should we have gone into Syria?

Relax at your own peril with Islamic terror, but don’t necessarily build a huge Homeland Security bureaucratic complex either, as Americans are looking at their Federal government with increasing suspicion? Tough to get the balance right, and America is currently undergoing a civil liberties/libertarian anti-Statist resurgence with a Progressive in power and the Snowden affair in the mix. Meanwhile, there are real threats out there: Lara Logan On Afghanistan Via Youtube: ’2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech’

———————————-

Just as Bush was criticized for thinking that inside every Iraqi is an American waiting to get out (Reaction to 9/11? To finish the first Gulf war? Shame over having abandoned the Kurds? Getting rid of Saddam on Bernard Lewis’ thinking that the tyrant hybrids to go?) …

…it could be said that Obama could be criticized for thinking that inside every protester in Egypt is a proto-community activist waiting to get out. The Cairo Speech and the liberal internationalists are running up against unpleasant reality. In this blog’s opinion, putting human rights activists turned diplomats in charge will have consequences. Events are already catching up.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future. It’s tough enough just to figure out what’s going on now.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats’

October 11, 2012October 15, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

‘Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.’

Why is this important? There appears to be a large gap between what our President is saying, and some of what he is doing through policy. Here is a summation of what I posted at Althouse’s blog, and I think it’s worth repeating:

‘Admitting Al-Qaida is still active and gaining ground in Afpak is admitting the reasons we went there are still valid, and will require continued military presence. We are, in Bush’s words, in a war on terror. Admitting that this attack was perpetrated by Al-Qaida in Libya means we’re still in a war on terror. It’s global and ongoing.

Hence the drone strikes, the surge in Afghanistan, and the continuation of most of Bush’s policies, including all kinds of abridgement of liberties here at home.

Let’s talk about the War On Terror. Let’s talk about the drone strikes. Let’s talk about Al-Qaida. Let’s talk about where America is in this war, and what policies the President has put in place and what we’re actually doing about it.’

Libya was supposed to have been billed as a success for Obama. We toppled a tyrant in the name of freedom (albeit a different definition that Bush envisioned) but let the Libyans do it themselves. It cost much less than Iraq, tried to appeal to international institutions as we did work with Britain and France, and there was less risk involved. We now have kind of a client state in Libya, and there was genuine support to get Ansar Al Sharia out after Stevens was killed. In the administration’s defense, this was just the kind of flower he promised to grow with his vision.

So how does Obama’s foreign policy vision line up with the policies he’s kept in place from the Bush administration? Just what are the threats facing America? How are Obama’s liberal internationalist policies working out there in the real world?

I’d like to think I would do the same for any other President.

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

————————

Addition: After the VP debate, I came away with the following:

1. Ryan correctly pointed out that Obama’s policy in Syria is not peace through strength. We ended up hemming and hawing through the U.N. and ceding too much of our interests to Russia, Iran, and other bad actors, who do not share our interests and actively work against our interests (though it’s not clear what to be done in Syria). We’ve changed ideals guiding our foreign policy, and these are clearly some downsides which can always possibly cause more conflict in the future. I believe that if we don’t stand up for our interests, no one will, and our interests don’t necessarily align with European interests either (and we’ve had limited, but much appreciated, support from allies). We don’t necessarily need to guide our foreign policy with these ideals to be successful.

2. The reason we went to Afghanistan, and the reason we’re still there is not to avenge 9/11 (though there’s some truth to that), but to secure our national interest. There are groups of Islamic terrorists and sympathizers who will actively plan and carry out attacks against us, and they will hole up in this area. There’s more and more Al Qaida on the ground as we speak. As hopeless as it looks (Pakistan actively working against us and supporting terrorism, the COIN results, the seemingly impossible task of nation building, the ungovernable FATA region, the very untrustworthy Afghan Army, Karzai’s weakness, the fact that the Taliban can probably wait us out and the over 2,000 Americans who’ve sacrificed their lives for our safety), our objective has always been to prevent more attacks on our soil. A timeline and withdrawal may please the base at home, but may not meet this objective. I don’t think any sitting U.S. President can allow this to happen, hence the drone strikes, Obama’s surge, and the continued war on terror. We’re still at war.

Addition: Al Qaida is on the rise in Afghanistan, and our objective has not been met. Just ask Lara Logan from 60 minutes who’s been watching the war.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’