The Meaning of Benghazi
The question still puzzling observers is why the administration told the story about a YouTube video when seeking to explain the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. One possible clue lies in the forgotten attack on the American embassy in Tunisia. Reuters reported that one of the Salafists believed responsible for the attack died in police custody after a hunger strike.
Tunisia could have been a tragic copy of Benghazi save for the fact that when the attack occurred the facility was not manned. As early as September 15, 2012, al-Qaida in Yemen claimed that “the uprising of our people in Libya, Egypt and Yemen against America and its embassies is a sign to notify the United States that its war is not directed against groups and organisations … but against the Islamic nation that has rebelled against injustice.”
Tunisia
Benghazi was not a sui generis. It was part of a coordinated counterattack on a broad American policy in the region. Why was the whole series of attacks ascribed to the infamous “video”? Perhaps the answer to this elusive mystery can be approached indirectly. Lee Smith sheds some light on what policy faction in Washington could gain from the dismissal of David Petraeus. “The general was one of few who understood that Iran was at war with the U.S., and no bargain could be struck”.
As commander of American forces in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008 and in Afghanistan from July 2010 to July 2011, Petraeus fought Iranians’ local proxies and frequently the Iranians themselves, often drawn from the Qods Force. As head of Central Command from October 2008 to June 2010, the general had a large area of responsibility that afforded him an overview of Iranian activities throughout the region, in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, the Persian Gulf states as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. During the course of almost a decade, Petraeus became Washington’s institutional memory of all of Iran’s activities directed against the United States and its allies.
An institution is characterized by what it chooses to forget as much as what it chooses. By who it chooses to get rid of and who it promotes. What Washington appears to remember almost to the point of obsession, is its desire to strike a deal with Teheran. That is going to be advanced at all costs, whatever the setbacks.
AOL Defense reports, “the United States and its allies would like to have a “face to face” meeting with Iranian officials before the end of the year, even as they struggle with just what to offer the Islamic Republic.” And to make it sweeter, Washington now feels it safe to signal that any military action against Iran is off the table. The ever reliable conduit CNN says “an all-out U.S. war with Iran, including an invasion by American troops, would cost the global economy close to $2 trillion in the first three months and could go as high as $3 trillion, according to a Washington think tank.” Translation: Obama will never do it.
Nor will Obama act to take control of Syrian chemical weapons. The New York Times reports that “the Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops … so far, there is no evidence that Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon but has become increasingly active in protecting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, is making any effort to gain control over the chemical weapons. Its decision to train fighters close to the major chemical sites, some officials speculate, could be rooted in a bet that their camps will not be bombed if the West believes there is a risk of hitting the stockpiles.” Translation: if Assad falls Hezbollah will get the chemical weapons.
Obama has signalled he will talk no matter what. This provides a tantalizing, if indirect set of clues as to what Benghazi was all about. Let’s list the clues again:
- Eastern Libya, that part closes to Egypt, is now overrun by al-Qaeda like militias;
- Obama will not strike Iran under any circumstances;
- Obama will not intervene decisively in Syria;
- Petraeus was a possible roadblock to any deal with Iran.
This creates the a bag of loot to sweeten a Grand Bargain. By denying himself the military option Obama may believe he makes a diplomatic solution foregone. One scenario that emerges is that Obama entrusted the entire management of the Middle East to a combination of covert action and diplomacy (called “Leading From Behind”) in which the military has no real part as an active instrument of policy. He is committed absolutely to it.
For loot, pParts of Libya and perhaps parts of Syria and Jordan are now available to be carved up and fed to those who are to be enticed into a Grand Bargain. Maybe Israel can be forced to contribute to the feast.
In this power play the Pentagon basically loses. It loses budget, clout and influence. Israel basically loses. The oil powers and the peace wing of the Democratic party win.
The attacks on Libya, Tunisia and Egyptian diplomatic had to be minimized in order to avoid the complete discredit of this approach. Nor would it do to blame our Partners for Peace — the militias. The diplomatic corridor had to be held open at all costs; and the weakness of the “Leading from Behind” policy covered up whatever befall. This may have led the video-story and the accelerated program of retirements, firings and suspensions in senior military ranks, whose effects are still being felt today.
If this scenario is anywhere near close to the truth, the greatest danger is what happens if it falls apart. What happens if “Leading from Behind” crashes and burns and there is no Plan B. The military, emasculated by budget cuts and marginalized in the decision-making process, can no longer ride to the rescue any more. The dangers of assuming success and dispensing with a backup plan are illustrated by history, as in the ill-fated decision of Adolf Hitler to supply his armies in Stalingrad From Above.
In a conference with Zeitzler and Hitler on Nov. 24, Goering grandiosely announced, “Mein Fuehrer, the Luftwaffe can resupply Stalingrad from the air”. Zeitzler summoned the nerve to confront the Reichsmarschall, and a nasty exchange followed. He asked Goering if he was aware of the tonnage involved. Goering responded that he did not, but his staff had the figures. Zeitzler yelled, “It’s a lie!”, and Hitler put an end to the discussion with the statement by announcing, “The Reichsmarschall has given his reassurances, and I am obliged to believe him.”
That didn’t work. But they were in denial until Zhukov came calling in Berlin. But the narrative must be served. “‘Go after’ Obama’s Ambassador in DC and you’ve got a problem. Kill one in Benghazi, and you don’t.”
If Benghazi was a lie, it would not be the first time in history that falsehood has ridden to the rescue of fantasy. Nor will it be the last. In the end, it’s not what you know that is false that gets you, but what you misrepresented as the truth which you believed that does.
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe
The LuftWaffe did have the ability to supply Stalingrad. The problem was, they had to also supply the airbridge to Tunisia at the same time, as well as some supplies to Army Group A in the Caucasus. Furthermore, the ability to supply was heavily dependent on having the nearby airbase at Tatsinskaya. Once that was overrun, it was over. Zeitzler should have made that argument.
“Yes, the LuftWaffe possibly has that ability, but not when doing other things, and not if we lose Tastinskaya. In fact, I doubt the airfield at Tasinskaya has the ability to support the necessary LuftWaffe forces for the job, anyway.” This allows Goering to be right about his nominal ability (face-saving), while providing the compelling argument against.
When subordinate to political creatures, anger is pointless and self-defeating.
Wretchard writes – “Let’s list the clues again:
1. Eastern Libya, that part closes to Egypt, is now overrun by al-Qaeda like militias;
2. Obama will not strike Iran under any circumstances;
3. Obama will not intervene decisively in Syria;
4. Petraeus was a possible roadblock to any deal with Iran. “
The lies and cover up in the face of an election would appear to me a red herring to draw from the fact that while leading from behind Obama and his administration managed to prop up and arm several radical factions that it had hoped to bring into a cynical partnership if not to control outright. That the effort turned into a blowback fiasco ala Fast and Furious killing Americans was the thing that required shrouds of smoke. Although your list bodes true, I think that item 1 was the pressing factor in this affair and Obama was concerned that his administration’s cock up with RTP Libya was an October surprise that he could not afford in face of a tight race.
The remarkable thing I have heard so far is that the Republicans have come out of the meetings saying that Petraeus said he knew that it was a terrorist attack from the outset, while the Dems have said that he said no such thing.
The other remarkable thing is that none of the senior people seem to know who wrote the remarks given by Amb Rice. Now, I have dealt some with the intelligence community and have found that they may or not be great spies and may or may not be brilliant analysts, but they damn sure have to be exceptionally capable file clerks. At the Pentagon my own boss threw away an analysis I did in 1992, but I gave a copy to the USAF Foreign Technology people and they had no trouble producing a copy 6 years later to answer a Congressional inquiry. Somebody knows the truth.
Meanwhile they are preparing the battlefield in other ways. Now AGW is on their list again. They’ll be able to tell us that losing all that oil and gas was no problem because we can’t afford to use it anyway.
Americans may no longer get to vote. However, Israel will vote on Obama’s grand plan. Iran will vote. Fate will vote.
Does Obama really think he can control the world like he controls Chicago and the swing state political districts? Obama is an amazingly small man of very little intellect, with an outsized ego.
Here’s my New Year’s prognostication: the Dems will happily drive Uncle Sugar’s Car right off the fiscal cliff, with much glee. No matter what the Stupid Party lamely tries to do in defense, it will be worthless, and the resultant crash and burn will be placed firmly on their shoulders. The military is going to get gutted big time, which plays right into your entirely plausible scenario. As the kids say, that’s a feature, not a bug. Oh, and Israel is gonna get fooked hard by Obama now. They are treading in some very dangerous waters as of 7 Nov. Kind of crazy to see the whole world lining up against Israel. Ever get the feeling there are powers and principalities that are trying to immanentize the eschaton, or is that just goofy old me?
EDIT: On a side note related to Wretchard’s post-election thread about memes and iconography. The one that I’ve seen start to gel is L.I.B. — Let It Burn. You’ve even got a post up in the Tatler with that proposition now.
Bingo Wretchard, you’ve hit the nail on the head (the only addendum I would contribute is that Obama, being a grandson of CIA officers per Angelo Codevilla, views covert/proxy wars as the only way to do business after the debacle of Bush’s wars). Plus covert actions/drones and even the occasional black site torture spot allow the One to maintain the pretense of being the Nobel Peace Prize winner while waging proxy wars on a scale even Bush’s people never contemplated.
In that spirit what was happening in Benghazi was likely Fast and Furious po Arabski — massively funnelling guns, rockets, mortars and even SA-7 MANPADs from the Duck of Death’s former arsenals to the Syria rebels. The neocons of course who see the Syria conflict solely in terms of unseating a Russian/Iranian ally in Assad refuse to see this, or even wink at it (I’m talking about Max Boot and others here who will get their way and get Israelis on the Golan Heights killed). The end goal of course is a Muslim Brotherhood state in Damascus allied with the one in Egypt, and one that Obama and Jarrett foolishly think they can ‘moderate’ because the Egyptian MBO and Morsi desperately need Western food aid and loans. But they cannot, anymore than they could prevent Ansar Al Shariah thugs who’d promised to provide security for the consulate from turning double agent, either working directly for the Quds force or for Al-Qaeda and killing our Ambassador after taking U.S. money to fight Assad!
If you’re Morsi and your increasingly Islamist government can only subsist on humiliating handouts from the U.S., EU and IMF loans that will soon run dry, the ‘solution’ is obvious: an oil grab in Cyrenica, eastern Libya, right across the border. Oh sure the Egyptians won’t formally annex eastern Libya, anymore than Russia officially claimed South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Russian territory (I know this because I know someone who tried to get a visa through a Russian consulate in the U.S. to Abkhazia and was told he could only apply through the Abhaz interests section at the Russian Embassy in D.C.). No the Egyptians will simply send (U.S./Obama funded!) tanks and guns to the ‘strongest tribe’ in Cyrenica who will rule Benghazi as Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood puppets in return for military protection, mercenaries and a cut of the oil wealth. This is the grand design of the Muslim Brotherhood friendly Jarrett Administration.
There won’t be any war with Iran unless — ironically as hell — Russia decides to wink at the Israelis using Azeri bases to refuel and rearm en route to hitting Iran, without the U.S. But Obama may be so brazen at this point that he would warn Bibi that IAF jets might get shot down by the USAF out of Qatar.
Almost never published, the German Army had an entire panzer corps entraining for strategic movement to the Stalingrad front within days of the attack. This gambit was pre-planned and the three divisions had been held in ‘winter reserve’ — being re-equiped at the same time.
Then, Operation Mars, the Red Army’s assault upon Army Group Center erupted.
Adolf dithered. The above citation occurred when he re-decided to NOT send this rescue force.
That makes it pretty amazing. In so many words, he was conceding encirclement of his Army Group at Stalingrad, even before it had been sealed off. (A procedure that took days, BTW, the Soviets were marching on foot through the snow over a ‘moonscape’.)
Hitler decided to retain the panzer corps to buttress Army Group Center — and its two panzer armies — leaving 6th Army to dangle.
Too late, he discovered that the opfor was inside his decision loop — and was spoofing his Enigma traffic, to boot.
——–
Marc mentions the loss of Tatsinskaya. Left unremarked is that when it was lost — the Red Army destroyed most of the Luftwaffe’s strategic lift in the sector.(!) Göring had panicked — sending so many aircraft that the field was jammed with his best freight-lifters. The Red Army brigade commander leading the attack received their highest honor: Hero of the Soviet Union.
============
I’d say that the 0bamanation is going to auger in, with power on full.
Perversely, it will prove a blessing that the DoD can’t intervene. Instead, the victory will go to Malthus.
The bitter hatred of the Salfists will cause their invasion force to lose open immigration status.
They do have goals and they do want to succeed and avoid failure however they define both success and failure. So the activities they are engaged in (the talk with Iran they profess to desire as a part of activities) are just steps toward some goal(s). What these goals are is the Question I try to figure out. I do not buy either socialist utopia or totalitarian dictatorship as a goal: both are too unstable and are intrinsically prone to violent convulsions dangerous to a ruling class because it is well known maxim of history that revolutions consume their children first so I think they do not want to be consumed.
May be I am wrong, and they just screwing around the only way they know how.
If the United States military loses, so does the United States dollar. The value of the dollar is directly proportional to the strength of the military. The U.S. Dollar is a military currency. Let’s put it this way – why should foreign countries buy American currency or U.S. Treasury bonds if the United States lacks the military force to live up to its treaty responsibilities?
Once one has killed the goose that lays golden eggs, the goose no longer lays golden eggs. Because the goose is dead.
President Obama may desperately want a deal with Iran, but Mr. Khamanei does not feel any such desperation.
Wretchard says: What happens if “Leading from Behind” crashes and burns and there is no Plan B.
Looks like the crash is already starting: “The loathsome Ali Musa Daqduq, a senior Hezbollah operative who engineered the kidnapping and killing of five American soldiers in Iraq in 2007, is reportedly back in Beirut, no doubt basking in his new-found freedom to plan fresh terrorist outrages. His release from Iraqi custody, while not unexpected, is nevertheless dismaying. The U.S., after having released all other detainees, turned him over last to Iraqi custody in 2011 hoping against hope that the Iraqis could somehow be persuaded to keep him locked up. Fat chance.
What makes the whole situation really pathetic is that Vice President Biden called Prime Minister Maliki in recent days pleading for Daqduq not to be released. The fact that he was set free anyway is hardly a sign of Maliki’s respect for the rule of law. It is a sign of how little influence the U.S. now wields in Iraq and how much influence Iran now has. Daqduq, after all, was in Iraq working for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to train Shiite militants to attack U.S. personnel. His release is a big victory for Iran and a big defeat for the United States.
If President Obama is chagrined about the outcome, he had no one to blame but himself.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/16/terrorist-release-is-rebuff-for-obama-daqduq-maliki-iraq/#more-811430
I agree with Wr and had decided it was to cover up their strategy and/or other things. Further, it seems obvious, from my chair, that Petraeus and other key military people, were deliberately set up, in advance, for some time. Set up by an enemy_foreign_or_domestic. Was he not blackmailed at the least… duh? My only question is the surrender strategy or something else; or is it both?
Is the obscuration, of: ME affairs, militias and RIP abhorations? Is that just a piece of something bigger? I think that perhaps that the good General and his affairs may have gathering intelligence on just those things; something evil in our ME activities. Something with strong tentacles into and within our own military and intelligence systems, perhaps reaching onto USA soil. Those in power had them quashed from the get go, letting them get all their info and them crushing them with one short announcement of the affair, at the time of their choosing.
Was Broadwick (?) and the General onto a serious espionage action regarding the other lady. Or were all three onto it? Who is the other lady really. Were the _nasty_emails_ threats to disclose or requests to stop what that other lady was part of. Was the other lady working for the enemy_f_or_d?
I don’t want normal paradigms to limit what may be going on. At some point we will be seriously challenged by our enemies who are increasingly acting together as _the_ enemy. Let us not under-estimate their abilities or goals (or over-estimate).
My point is the media and DC have made the whole thing about an affair only. Maybe it’s much more. If we believe the story line and this is much more, we have a lot to loose…
It is obvious Al Qaeda has a mole with direct access to the President, able to give orders at the highest level. Fortunately there is no risk to the President.
9. Alexis
If the United States military loses, so does the United States dollar. The value of the dollar is directly proportional to the strength of the military.
………….
I like this argument. But I’m not buying it.
The talk all over is about an IEA report that the US will become energy independent by 2020. (More likely, north america –meaning the USA Canada & Mexico will be energy independent by 2020–since that’s what Romney promised because the oil industry was already set to do just that. )
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/11/15/u-s–is-on-track-to-reach-oil-independence.html
imho this has huge implications for the dollar –since all energy independent countries have strong currencies.
As well, there are going to be huge manufacturing shifts to the USA in the next ten years –that will be just as huge and defining as the shift of US manufacturing overseas.
The sad thing is that Obama will be able to take credit for this stuff–even though most of it will happen despite his best efforts to prevent it.
(imho there are a couple big tech revolutions right around the corner.)
ge @ 12: It is obvious Al Qaeda has a mole with direct access to the President
Rodent problems all over the white house.
*Gerbil joke deleted*
Fox News:
“Florida socialite Jill Kelley, who initiated the investigation that ultimately unveiled Petraeus’ extramarital affair, and her sister had two “courtesy” meals at the White House mess as guests of a midlevel White House aide in September and October, the official said. Kelley and her family also received a White House tour on the weekend before the election.”
Read more
Cui bono?
Obama won by shoving the dirt under the carpet for the week before the election.
China wins by locking down contracts for Iranian oil and gas and seeing the US Navy sequestered to death.
Russia wins by ensuring that control over Libyan and Eastern Mediterranean energy is under either clients or at least forces hostile to the West and unable to guarantee a secure supply to Europe. Putin needs to prevent Israel from developing the new offshore fields. He needs Europe helplessly dependent on Gazprom. The Italians and French by dragging the Americans into eliminating Ghaddafi have not ensured themselves a second source of energy but instead increased their dependence on Russia. The coordinated agitprop campaign against nuclear coal and fracking in both Europe and America has strings that run to both Russia and China.
The official narrative is that in Syria an Iranian client, and Russian ally, is threatened by an alliance of the Moslem Brotherhood and liberals, who are potentially allies of America, if only we were free of those pesky Israelis. What if this is a false choice? Assad’s fate matters to Assad but the Russians, while happy to see Assad survive and their seaport investment secured, may be also playing both sides. What is the down side for Russia if the MB makes a pig’s breakfast of the Levant Egypt and the oil producing regions?
By being unable to speak the appellation,the senior people are as good as identifying him. The person who inserted the remarks for Ambassador Rice is He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. And we all know who that is.
Wretchard is way out in front again.
Mebbe some prominent Pubs need to open their collective mouths for once and remind America loudly and with great clarity that Islam doesn’t do Peace Treaties- they do Hudnas- temporary truces that evaporate as soon as the time is right for attack on the infidel. Peace Treaties are forbidden in Islamic doctrine, in normal circumstances.
For one, like the Dark Lord Buraq Hussein, to propose a Peace Treaty with the Islamists can only mean one of two things:
• He is a totally incompetent fool or
• He wants the Peace to fail for the decided benefit of our enemies.
Since Buraq Hussein is a Muslim and has studied the Koran in Arabic, I’m a thinkin door number two.
The only way Islamic Doctrine allows muslims to submit to a western style rule peace treaty is after the West (or some such infidel enemy) has beaten the holy living crap out of them and the muslims feel have no other way out. Otherwise, for the devout it’s jihad 24/7/365.
Wretchard #17:
It will be interesting to see if the departure of so many senior Obama Admin officials produces a flurry of “It wasn’t me. The devil made me do it.” confessional books.
“The question still puzzling observers is why the administration told the story about a YouTube video”
That’s because the administration believes the entire electorate is comprised entirely of low-information voters.
Another thought: As has been noted here, Obama’s administration is mostly filled with academics with little to no practical experience dealing with the real world. Applying Occam’s razor, perhaps they really have no clue, no Plan B — they’re winging it. And in their academic bubble, they don’t understand the military maxim that the enemy gets a vote. And they don’t know what to do about that.
“Nor will Obama act to take control of Syrian chemical weapons.”
Of course not. Then the WMDs that Sadaam Hussein sent to Syria would be uncovered, validating Bush. obama would never allow it.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraqs_wmd_moved_to_syria_before_war_says_general/
What is Fienstein’s price? This is Chicago politics all the way. She has Obama by the short hairs and she will extract her price. Down the road the Big O will throw her under the bus, so she should extract quite a bit of lucre before she retires. Missouri compromise? Lousiana purchase? We will know when the Junior Senator from Cali-fornia has gotten her demand. That will be when she tells us to “move along….”