On Benghazi, Not Very Definitive
Our government’s curious switch of allegiances is highly relevant to another pivotal question that the authors elide: Why did the State Department have an office in Benghazi in the first place? As the authors point out — while making a compelling case that the security provided at the site was appallingly inadequate — Benghazi has long been one of the most perilous places on the planet for Americans. So why have an installation there? And why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on September 11 — the anniversary to the 9/11 attacks, and thus a particularly attractive date for jihadists who’d already demonstrated a desire to kill Americans in Benghazi? These questions have still not been answered, and this book does not attempt to grapple with them.
In an interesting and related twist, the authors initially take pains to point out that the State Department’s facility in Benghazi was not a consulate; it was, instead, a “Temporary Mission” that was “set up on a much more ad hoc basis.” Yet, the authors decide to join the chorus anyway, weakly explaining that they will call the temporary mission a “consulate,” even though it was not one, because “it served a similar purpose.” But it did not: A consulate is a mini-embassy that conducts diplomatic services; the Benghazi “temporary mission” did not. U.S. diplomatic services in Libya are provided in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the best the authors can say is that State hoped to “help build diplomatic inroads … during a transitional period in Libya[.]”
Well, whatever was going on elsewhere in Libya, it was not much of “a transitional period” in Benghazi. There, as in Derna, the populace prominently featured jihadists who hated America, both during and after Qaddafi’s reign. As the authors suggest, the CIA certainly had reasons to be in Benghazi: to gather intel against anti-American actors (intel we were no longer getting from Qaddafi); to hunt down WMD and the rest of Qaddafi’s extensive arsenal that were sure to fall into jihadist hands once the Obama administration decided to switch sides; and to gather up weapons — presumably for Brennan’s covert pipeline to Syria, although the authors are not entirely clear on what, if anything, the CIA knew about this alleged scheme. But why on earth did the State Department need a facility in a place so dangerous, a place where Western targets were so regularly attacked that other countries (like Britain) had the good sense to leave?
When it comes to the fallout of the massacre, the authors assume an irritating “above it all” posture, harrumphing that commentators on the left and right have leveled only politically motivated, recklessly inaccurate criticisms — such that this purportedly “definitive” and courageously apolitical book is necessary. Obama detractors come in for special condemnation, with the authors claiming to explode their “myths” about presidential malevolence. But their assertion that the principal case against Obama is that he is a “callous, evil man” who expressly denied military help to Americans under siege is a straw-man.
To be sure, there was a fringe claim that the administration ordered military commanders to stand down as they were preparing to send air support and other assets to the bloody scene — a report which, as the authors observe, has been debunked. Nevertheless, the principal condemnation of Obama has been his dereliction of duty, not any affirmative obstruction of subordinates. The president was well aware, early on, that the compound was under terrorist attack, yet he was weirdly disengaged and failed to take rudimentary aggressive and protective measures, an abdication that was likely the difference between life and death for at least two of the victims — Woods and Doherty. In the aftermath, despite being well aware that the operation against the compound had been a lengthy, coordinated terrorist assault, and that there had been no protest in Benghazi over the infamous “Mohammed video,” the president and his underlings willfully misled the public by insisting, for many days and in several high-profile forums, that the murders were the result of spontaneous rioting over the video. That shameful sleight-of-hand came to include the adhesive prosecution of the producer of the video — under the guise of a probation violation — resulting in his imprisonment for, in effect, exercising his constitutional free-speech rights (which is to say, resulting in the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards over First Amendment liberty).
Their histories suggest they might well be able to report on the events on the ground, but I doubt that they are qualified or have the contacts to get inside Obama’s inner circle. So they may be acting on the career soldier’s desire to not disrespect the commander in chief.. best case..
Worst case.. Murphy’s author page lists him as a New York native.. Webb’s doesn’t say,.. so it’s also possible their are leaning over backwards to excuse a president they voted for too.. I doubt Obama has a huge cast of admirers in the spec ops community, but then, people all have their own ideological blinders, even these two. So worst case, they don’t blame and actively work to excuses a p#ss poor feckless leader because they wanted too. I’d have to know what their active stance on the politics are to be sure, but to absolve Obama completely..
That seems pretty lame for two supposedly hard chargers..
Worse to effectively make it about the actions of Obama’s appointees following his orders, yet then say it’s not really his fault.. Which is it? Did he fail or not?
I get the impression the book is by two vets who swapped “no S##t” stories with former contacts, with no real ability to know what was true and what wasn’t, to say two highly trained operators were qualified to know the inner workings of the White House itself is a stretch, would they even know the right people?.. I doubt it. Sounds more like two career GI’s lecturing boots not to disrespect the president than anything like an objective investigation. It may be a military virtue not to diss the president of any party..
but for voters, it’s a cop out when they promised facts they don’t really have access too.
Exactly my thoughts. Muddy the waters, and don’t indict any of the real players (Clinton/Obama).
This whole thing was a CIA gun running op that was winding down.
I read that the Turkish Amb was in Benghazi to make sure no WMD were being shipped to Turkey (and on to the Islamists in Syria) and that our Amb went there to meet with the Turkish Amb. After the meet, the Turkish Amb leaves and all hell breaks loose. Makes sense. Why else would Amb Stevens be in Benghazi?
And how many Americans do you suppose are going to end up dying because of those weapons we “liberated” and smuggled to Turkey for the Islamists in Syria?
The very fact that this book could get published at all, and the authors are not under lawsuits and death threats, means that there is nothing of substance in it.
I would not be surprised if these guys are also part of the cover up by continuing to muddy up the water. Not unlike the “video” idea being the cause of riots in the arab streets. Go ahead and keep us chasing down another rat hole and sooner or later the American public gets tired of the spectacle and moves on. Most of what I have read never discusses the chain of military command in place, the proximity of American forces that could have responded, the drone overhead that allowed everyone in the chain of command to see what was going on, the people who were saved “no one knows who they are”, the generals and admirals that were relieved of command. It has all but gone dark. How did this happen is the question we want answered. We are not getting any answers. Classicaly god ole Lindsey Graham says he will “hold up” Hagel’s appointment mind you until he gets answers. OK give him some answers and Obama will get Hagel in. Graham is an idiot. He should block Hagel and Brennan forever and impeach this president.
The one thing that I have concluded with regard to this entire Benghazi debacle is that we have not been told anything resembling the truth.
I fear that our president has done something truly horrible here, the likes of which, if you or I were to have done such things, would have us dangling from the end of a rope.
What’s more is that the fourth estate seems perfectly content to play along, to cover up, to excuse, to deflect anything that would shed light upon what happened.
An Ambassador of the United States of America is dead – murdered – contemplate that for a second.
And no one seems to care how or why he died.
This article was very disappointing. Where are the new theories on Benghazi conspiracies? PJM has been a fount of conspiratorial fiction up til now, are we suddenly taking a “literary critic” backseat?
Let’s not lead from behind. Now is the time for PJM to get in front of the story by making it up again!
General Mao, Any port in a storm, and any excuse will do.
I read the book and wasn’t disappointed because I knew from the author’s bios that there area of expertise would be narrow. I didn’t expect them to implicate Obama or get into the politics of foreign affairs. This was not a political piece, it was an account of what happened to their friends, and rather than speculate, the authors were clear that they didn’t have certain answers.
Others need to step in and investigate the broader questions, but for people like me who are curious about Benghazi and frustrated by the lack information, the book was more than worth the $2.99 and hour of my time to read it.
The authors are quite sensitive to criticism of this lame book. When confronted with the fact that a U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) unit was in Benghazi as late as August of ’12, recommending increased secuity and wasn’t mentioned, one of the authors claimed that “…Special Forces doesn’t do embassy security.” Malarky. The SF has been involved in embassy security at least since 1983.
This book appears to have been written by two men who through their own experiences wanted to tell the valor of those who died in Benghazi. They didn’t seem to go to the basic question level to really discover who the real villains were. Start with the disastrous decision to fight the Libyan war the way Obama fought(?) it. Then the terrible decision to put the consulate in Benghazi with less security than we have in St. Thomas VI. After those incompetent decisions Brennan was using Stevens and the tiny consulate to run guns and who knows what to fight Al Qaeda in North Africa. All of the other Western country’s personnel had already been evacuated leaving only the US personnel. They place no blame on the Sec. of State for her incompetent role in this nor do they ever explain why the DoD never offered to do anything. Even the Embassy/CIA in Tripoli was acting like sniveling cowards. Why no shame heaped upon them? It appears to be a book written by two men who wanted to set the story straight but had no reference point other than at the street level. God knows the actions of the men in Benghazi are so far above the actions of the president and his entire cabinet that it make a grown man want to cry. To think of the gross incompetence of the entire Obama staff and cabinet members and not see even ONE msm journalist ask tough questions is deflating as a nation.
Benghazi joins a lengthening list of “rogue operations” that will never be adequately explained nor will accountability be meted out. The list also includes Fast and Furious, Fort Hood “workplace violence”, among numerous others.
What will the next four years bring?
This is a cross post from Roger Simon’s column (which I read first). This seems a better place for my questions:
My comments here might be just too naïve, but . . . I’m really uneasy about the huge SILENCE of the very large number of people, some at very high levels of the military and government, who have been directly, and adversely, affected by Benghazi—just one example of Obama’s sheer incompetence and malice.
These people know that Obama and crew are lying snakes with treason in their bones. But, to a person—all with devastatingly incriminating information to share—they say nothing: e.g., remember that Charles Woods, the father of SEAL, Tyrone Woods, spoke out boldly after his murder in Benghazi. In fact, the elder Woods accused the White House of murder. Now that we know, for sure, that Obama and the White House did absolutely nothing to help the Benghazi victims, wouldn’t one expect that a vindicated Charles Woods would step up his demand for justice for his son? The answer is obviously yes, but we only hear crickets from Mr. Woods—and everyone else: all of the escapees from Benghazi, the experienced ME military leaders relieved of their command, etc. Something is really rotten in the USA.
Some of these people must be patriots and thoroughly disgusted by what’s happening to their country. I’ve wondered if some of them might be planning to speak out at some point. If not, that’s an astonishing indictment of the integrity of Americans well placed to “out” Obama and his treacherous posse. (If a powerful group of people were to speak out, would it make a difference?)
This apparent conspiracy of silence, which must involve hundreds of Americans, is truly scary—terrifying, actually. How is it that they’re ALL keeping their mouths shut? How, exactly, are Obama and company compelling them to behave like spooked sheep—like lambs to the slaughter? I’d appreciate some feedback on this.
I wonder the same things, but unfortunately, it’s not just Benghazi. It’s Fast and Furious and the EPA many other instances of people just shutting down discussion and Republicans in congress choosing their battles or avoiding them altogether.
The whole Benghazi affair is just a Shame. What else can you say.
The media will not go after the story. The GOP just blew every opportunity to apply political pressure; from Mitt, on down the line.
I guess when the president’s papers are released decades from now we will know the truth completely. Until then, it is just a shame!
Papers? We don’t need no stinkin’ Presidential Papers!
No, much of what this president does is off the record, on his personal Blackberry.
We will not know the story from his official sources.
Republicans aren’t street fighters enough to offer protection to anyone who would come forward. We need some good ‘ole boys like the ones who brawled for the Republicans in the 80s. ‘
We aren’t angry enough.
Yet.
I agree with you about Mitt and his failure to go after Obama HARD on this matter. He should have been better prepared to go into deeper details and not let Obama’s fake sense of indignity slow him down. If he had pursued this like a bulldog on a postman’s leg Candy would not have been able to change the subject. Oh well, Mitt missed a lot of opportunities and that is over. What will this criminal do in the next four years to our great nation?
I read the book with the caveat that these former operators would not have access to what happened in the higher levels of State, DOD and the White House. It’s a boots on the ground account of the nuts and bolts of what may have happened on the ground. I really doubt that Ambassador Stevens was ignorant about what was going on in Benghazi. I think he knew exactly what was happening. The best that can be said for State is that they were completely incompetent. The best that can be said for Obama is that he did not even bother phoning it in. The lies that have come out of Washington on Benghazi seem meant to obscure the real facts, which unfortunately may never be known. That implies they are very damaging to those currently in power.
Republicans in Congress badly blew their chance to ask probing questions of Clinton, Panetta and Brennan. They could and should have coordinated with each other to maximize their questions; instead, only two of them did ask relevant questions and got no answers. The hearings were set up to produce that result.
I can understand somewhat the silence of the families of those killed. A violent death is traumatic for the survivors. They may have done their best, got no answers and now have no energy for the fight for the truth. Grief will do that to a person.
Why we haven’t heard from any of the 30 some people who were reportedly air lifted out of Benghazi the next day is puzzling. Some of them may be covert operatives who can’t go public and keep their jobs. But surely there are a few who are willing to talk about what happened. It’s difficult to keep 30 people quiet, so why haven’t we heard anything? Do they all have hostages to fortune, wives and children to keep safe? If so, who did the threatening? I can guess, but I’d rather know.
Most of the information in this book is readily obtainable via “open source “. These authors are simply parlaying their SOF experience into book sales.Murphy is a PolSci student at Columbia,enough said. Neither author has any JSOC experience, so they would have limited knowledge concerning JSOC operations, let alone Agency ops.
The real issue with Benghazi , is the absolute incompetence and corruption of the Federal Government and its agencies. Mr. McCarthy knows this well.There are corrupt “little fiefdoms” in all these agencies. Too many hands in the pie, so to speak.
In the military, it is operational protocol to “de-conflict the battle space, esp. so in an Asymmetrical battle space. A commander needs to know his players.
In Benghazi you had numerous ops in a conflicted Asymmetrical battle space. No agency knew of each others operations, all the better for the “chiefs” of the fiefdoms. Power plays were everywhere and the result was a huge shit sandwich.
It is a reasonable conclusion that, at the time, no one knew what the hell happened. You cannot get the sum without knowing the parts.
Good luck finding those parts.
In all the comments on the disaster in Libya it is strange that Hilary Clinton seems to always be above suspicion. However Clinton is the architect of the socalled arab spring and the infiltration of Islamic extremists into the State Department. The fact that Clinton has the inside track on the succession of Barry Soetero’s presidency this is indeed alarming. The Clinton have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the opec billionaires who will bankroll her run for control of what was formerly the USA.
I think back to reading some of the earlier reports of the Benghazi tragedy, that there was a “stand down” issued when help was asked for. Who issued that order and to whom? Why was a General removed from command during the attack? Who issued that order, and for what reason? Too many unasked questions, too few areas examined, too little real exposure. In the end, all of it comes down to the fact that Obama is a blatant coward who, when action is needed, runs and hides.
I see a lot of posts bad mouthing Republicans in congress in general, and Mitt Romney in specific. The election turned on poor CONSERVATIVE turn out. An AVERAGE Conservative turn out would have bounced Obama! Why did they stay home? Why did they not at least come out to vote for candidates down ticket? I suspect that at least some of those so complaining did not vote. Winning starts with SHOWING UP!! To those who disparage Romney, Lincoln, and Reagan are both dead, and expected to remain so. At the time of their elections neither were considered even average. If you don’t vote FOR the best available you always get something worse, and generally much so.
I bought this book, after hearing the hype, for my kindle and felt really cheated. The impression I got, after reading it, was that everyone and his brother has a private army and those not in an army are selling weapons….in Libya. Brennan is a “windbag” in the midst of all this.
Cheated? It was $2.99!
Mr. McCarthy states the following:
“To be sure, there was a fringe claim that the administration ordered military commanders to stand down as they were preparing to send air support and other assets to the bloody scene — a report which, as the authors observe, has been debunked.”
Please, Andrew, give us a link and also explain both the “fringe claim” and how you believe it has been “debunked”. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy, and I look forward to your response.