As the security situation deteriorated in Benghazi, Ambassador Christopher Stevens did an extraordinary thing: He stayed.
Al Qaeda attacked the Red Cross mission in Benghazi in May, and they soon abandoned their post in the city. British Ambassador Sir Dominic Asquith was attacked as he drove through Benghazi on June 11. The British would soon abandon their mission. Islamists staged a show of force in June, and by August it was apparent that al Qaeda-affiliated groups were on the rise and could take over the government. Ambassador Stevens even warned Washington that he had seen the flag of al Qaeda flying on government buildings.
And yet, he stayed. He pleaded for more security, he warned that the situation was getting worse, but Chris Stevens kept the American flag flying above the West’s last outpost in Benghazi.
Why?
I was asked that question on the Lincoln Brown radio show this morning, and here’s my answer.
Ambassador Stevens understood the messages that his exit would send. For the American ambassador to pull down the Stars and Stripes and shutter the Benghazi consulate would have told the people of that city that America is an unreliable ally. His exit would have signaled that the forces of freedom had lost the cradle of the Libyan revolution to the forces of terror and tyranny. His exit would have sent a louder political message to the voters back home in America. That message would have been, that the Obama-led “responsibility to protect” driven war in Libya had failed. Gaddafi was gone and dead, but the absence of American leadership in the war’s aftermath had led to an Islamist summer. America’s lack of leadership was a choice. Obama’s decisions to “lead from behind” and his promise to never put boots on the ground in Libya had led directly to Libya’s turn from bad to worse. Stevens, a friend of Secretary of State Clinton, did not want to send either of those messages. He understood how explosive they would be in a close election. So he stayed, out of a mix of patriotism and political loyalty.
How was he repaid for this loyalty? According to Bing West, the United States could have had F-18s overhead within an hour of the battle’s beginning. The United States could have had special forces on the ground to assist the besieged American defenders within another hour or two. The United States could have responded decisively during the six-hour battle, a battle Washington was watching and monitoring in real time.
But though his administration knew that Ambassador Stevens had gone missing in the early course of the assault, President Obama took no action at all. He never scrambled the F-18s from Sicily. He never ordered special forces in to rescue him or defend the American soil and image that the consulate represented. Obama went to bed that night, and after a few brief and deceptive remarks on the assault, he went to a campaign fundraiser in Vegas.
President Obama did nothing at all on the night of the assault, and well over a month later, has still done nothing at all.
Why?
Update: I erred when I said that Obama “did nothing” about Benghazi. He did something. The man who made the YouTube that did not cause the attack is still in jail.
because the ambassador was just a useful idiot
WHY DID STEVENS STAY?
Stevens stayed because he was recruiting Libyan jihadi fighters for Syria. As to the advanced Russian weaponry, Stevens may have been trying to secure them. However, a lot if not most of these weapons, have already been transferred/sold to Gaza through Sinai.
WHY DIDN’T THE PREDATOR DRONE ABOVE BENGHAZI ATTACK?
The drone, which was above Benghazi during the attack on the mission, didn’t attack because the White House wouldn’t give the order for it to do so. The White House didn’t want it known that Ambassador Stevens was recruiting fighters (including al Qaeda) for Syria. That’s why he tried to cover up that there was a terrorist attack to begin with.
‘he’ = Obama
How do you know?
Because the rebels had stingers? That is why Stevens was there in the first place (ie, to recover them)?
The Libyans had Soviet Manpads and SA7s, both serious threats to rotorcraft and trash haulers. These are not that lethal against fast movers like the F/A-18. Fighters have flares and are tough to see at night.
What the hell would F-18s do you ignorant sod? Bomb Libya? Special forces would not have been able to do anything except blunder around in a cloud of confusion and upsetting the local Libyans, who were already tracking the killers. Two other things. 1) Presidents don’t micro-manage. (The CIA was in the area and investigating.) 2) You don’t know that President Obama did nothing. (That’s an assumption you made based on your ignorance and bigotry.) The Obama Admin has been releasing CIA assessments on the incident as and when they come in. If you don’t like that, suck it up. That’s the way these events work out.
Dayam, you’re really worried about your Stafford money, aren’t you?
The fact that the President was informed either 90 minutes or 3 hours (from initial news reports) about it, and then went to bed, shows he did nothing. He could have ordered rapid reaction teams to the consulate. They didn’t deploy, that’s on the Commander in Chief. Unless he’s the Empty Chair in Chief.
Man, you really are ignorant. It would have taken hours to get an RRF there. The CIA was investigating. What did you want the President to do? Stay up and bite his nails?
special forces could easily have been on the ground within 2 hours … its your ignorance that on display here …
So why was security decreased to bare bones, and less, in an area where the British & Red Cross bugged out, and told our intelligence agencies months before.
Do you really think a policy of relying on Libyans to supply security is a good idea? That policy is directly on the President’s shoulders.
And the battle lasted SIX HOURS, so getting people there in a couple of hours could have had an impact on the situation.
How about acting like a leader instead of a wimp?
“They didn’t deploy, that’s on the Commander in Chief – even if he’s just the Empty Chair in Chief.”
FIFY. ;o)
There mere show of air power could have scattered the enemies, as you would know if you had read Bing West’s post that I linked. That has worked in previous low-scale terrorist assaults. You can stop the “ignorance and bigotry” personal attacks and deal with facts, or you can be banned. Choose.
Bing is another one who loves to mouth off without thinking. What could F-18s do from 18000′? Jeez. Any lower and MANPADS would have taken them out. The foreign fighters who killed Stevens would not be impressed by F-18s. Stevens had already died from smoke inhalation before anyone knew what was happening.
Are you saying the “protesters” at the consulate had MANPADS with them? Interesting.
Wow, this is like “Groundhog Day”…U.S. keeps a Nimitz carrier task force complete with USMC contingent of Regiment or Brigade strength (either would have been MORE than capable of dealing with this situation) in the Mediterranean 24/7/365 FOR JUST SUCH AN OCCURRENCE!!! Marines complete with close air and resupply assets and the firepower of a USN Nimitz class aircraft carrier. The FACTS are that this president watched the attack unfold in real time and DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect or defend those poor, brave Americans under attack in Benghazi. NOTHING.
You, Sir, are the uninformed or intentionally misinformed person in this discussion. When the facts are against you, turn personal and start calling people names. it might make you feel better, but in reality it only accomplishes your placing your ignorance on parade for the whole world to see.
Rumsfeld on Kudlow 10/22: There’s an American base on an island off Italy. Planes/troops could’ve been in Benghazi in about two hours.
Bryan, threatening to censor posts or ban someone indicates that you can’t counter what he’s saying with arguments. That’s not a good precedent.
AntiWacko made what seem to me like fair points. I was wondering myself what possible impact F-18s can have on the ground.
I would think the best argument for inaction is that by the time special forces arrived, our Ambassador and the other victims were probably dead.
That being said, sending them in puts forth the right message. I think if I had been President, I would have put boots on the ground as soon as humanly possible, and retaken the Embassy, just because what happened looks really, really awful, and retaking the Embassy would have at least restored a little bit of our tattered dignity.
If the CIA was there, perhaps they could have done the same.
Of course the content of your article makes the Administration’s abandonment of the Ambassador by refusing his obviously reasonable requests for decent security look even more disgusting.
Does anyone know where in the chain of command those requests for extra security landed? Did only subordinates see them? Did Hillary? Did the President? I’d like to know, because that’s the only way we know if the blame really should hit State or the President and his re-election campaign.
D
“I would think the best argument for inaction is that by the time special forces arrived, our Ambassador and the other victims were probably dead.”
thats monday morning quarterbacking at its worst … we didn’t know the Amb was dead so AT THAT POINT IN TIME you can’t make that argument for inaction … boots on the ground would certainly have been the logical move for several reasons … none of which apparently mattered to Obama …
you get banned for things like “What the hell would F-18s do you ignorant sod ?” not for making a good point …
F/A-18E/F aircraft have a variety of weapons they could employ in the close-air support role including a 20mm cannon for direct strafing, night vision systems directing laser guided bombs and GPS-guided JDAM bombs, and extremely accurate Maverick and Hellfire air-to-ground missiles.
These would be even more accurate if a ground unit had gotten in to lase the target(s).
That they had a drone overhead feeding video means they had targeting intel already.
And to say the Hornets would not venture lower than 18,000 feet is laughable.
Obama did, however, assure the safety of the Hornets by keeping them tucked in their beds on the carrier.
Even the brain dead knows it was Sept 11. Osama’s followers know the significance of that day. Bush’s orange terror alert wasn’t about oranges. But Obama cut security instead of increased security on that day. We didn’t even need “credible” intelligence of “credible” threats, it was 9-11. As they say, it’s a no brainer. But the Most Brilliant One botched a no brainer.
Say whatever you will about how unfair to dump on Obama who killed Osama with his bare hands, you know, but an increase in security on Sept 11 would have prevented the tragedy. He takes the credits for killing Osama, he takes the blames for getting the ambassador and the other three Americans killed. “Not Optimal”, but that’s what presidents and real leaders do: take responsibility, learn from mistakes, ask for forgiveness if needed, move on. Presidents and real leaders don’t hide behind their underlings, scapegoats, and Candy’s tent-sized skirt.
Btw, how’s the scapegoat filmmaker whose youtube video caused the protests that never occured?
Don’t blame a cut in budgets either. They have enough money to buy Volts and build charge stations in Vienna. Obama has enough money, $535 million to let his bundler billionaire Kaiser run Solyndra down the drain; enough money, $2 billion to “invest” in sugar daddy Soros’ Petrobra to drill oil off the coast of Brazil. But not enough money to put U.S. Marines holding weapons loaded with real bullets to guard US consulates and embassies in war torn Middle Eastern countries.
“You don’t know that President Obama did nothing.”
Nothing was done. The president is the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, Obama did nothing.
Whacko,
How much fighter time to you have? I have 2000 hours in F4s, lots in Vietnam plus some UH1 combat time in Central America. Modern attack aircraft have precision guided ordnance and weapons capable of working within 20 meters of friendlies. Troops in contact is a normal ground attack role. There were SOF guys within a mile of the consulate.
Obama should have 1) listened to his security people on the ground when they requested a more robust defense force, 2) stayed in contact with the NSC ensuring that the US soil under attack got every resource they needed, 3) told the truth that al Qaeda was taking over Eastern Libya and sent in US ground forced to stabilize the area.
To Obama. however, lying was easier. He didn’t think the press would ask about it until after the election.
I’ve had more than enough fighter time in my younger days. Way more than you as a matter of fact. Who were you going to attack? Libyans who were actually on the side of the US. You gung-ho dumbasses never think. You just cause friendly-fire casualties.
He listened to security. Tripoli was beefed up. Benghazi was a temporary consulate and indefensible, even with quadruple the strength and foot-thick walls. They would still have been outnumbered, outgunned & killed.
The President is in contact with the NSC wherever he is.
Al Qaeda is NOT taking over anything. In fact, AQ is for all practicable purposes, dead. It was never an organization; just a handful of people with ideas and deep pockets to fund terror acts. The bad actors are individuals or small, independent, groups that use the AQ idea for motivation and call themselves arms of AQ for local and political consumption. Even the WTC attack was done by an independent group that got the “blessings” of and funding from UBL.
Obama did not lie. He was just passing on intel as it came in. Even our people thought at the time that it was a demonstration that escalated. We now think it was an attack under cover of a fake demonstration.
Quit the bigotry. Obama has been the best president the US has had in 60 years.
“Bigotry.” You lose your argument when you play the race card, especially when there is absolutely no call for it. Strike two.
Choose.
Actually, you’ve obviously already chosen the race card twice. That’s enough. Banned.
“He listened to security. Tripoli was beefed up. Benghazi was a temporary consulate and indefensible, even with quadruple the strength and foot-thick walls. They would still have been outnumbered, outgunned & killed.”
Yes, so why was Amb. Stevens in such an awful place to begin with?
“Obama has been the best president the US has had in 60 years.”
As measured by what?
Unemployment
Annual Deficits
Lack of GDP growth
???
One more comment for you. I don’t know or care who you are. You don’t come in here and under a cowardly guise, try to order people around and accuse everyone here of racism because we question Obama. We question his policies and his priorities and we examine his record. His race has absolutely nothing to do with it. But why is it that every single Obama supporter who comes here resorts to the race card at some point?
Thank you, Bryan. I cannot stand the ease with which people (usually lefties) toss that charge out. It’s deadly serious, one of the worst things you can say about a person. A banning was well deserved.
Anyone here recall when the screeching class were mewling “Dissent is patriotism” ? Oddly enough , even before the Lightbringer was elected , it was opined that Dissent would become racism, this opinion is now fact and brought to us by the screeching class.
It’s amazing how the 99 percent who’ve never served or objectively studied military affairs/history think their uninformed opinions are valid.
F-18s carry these little things called JDAMs. They are accurate enough to take out individual buildings (like where the mortars were firing from). More to the point, it sends a message: “Leave, now, or we will kill everyone in a 10 block radius: your wives, your children, everyone. The price of an American slain is 1000 of you.”
With all these warnings, those forces could all have been well-prepared. I hope these questions are asked in the debate tonight. Of course the “antiwacko” post above is probably Valerie Jarrett herself. You do the math.
But I’ve guessed (and said) this about Stevens from the start: he knew his danger, and he stayed. Brave. Apparently too much so.
And an entirely proper and appropriate political issue.
What I also keep asking about is whether there weren’t naval resources, helicopter transports that had earlier been off Libya, still in the area, in the Mediterranean, that couldn’t have been positioned offshore weeks earlier, putting Marines on the ground within an hour or less if needed. Just having them stand by over the horizon shouldn’t upset a friendly Libyan government.
“Just having them stand by over the horizon shouldn’t upset a friendly Libyan government.”
For that matter, a military response to an attack on the embassy shouldn’t upset a friendly government, either. Make it clear you’re not escalating to war with them, and it’s a simple enough matter under law and custom.
(Namely, nations are responsible for the violence that is committed against other nations from their territory. If they CANNOT stop that violence, then the target nation can respond to the violence without it being an act of war. If they DO NOT stop the violence, then it may actually be an act of war.)
Josh, you said:
“But I’ve guessed (and said) this about Stevens from the start: he knew his danger, and he stayed. Brave. Apparently too much so.”
I so agree, but Stevens was also sadly naive. He thought they would send help if an actual disaster occurred. He was betrayed. The administration cares more about “His Image”.
You wrote:
“And an entirely proper and appropriate political issue. ”
Absolutely! America’s vote should be based on whether we have a competent leader. “leader” covers ALL our land, both here and abroad!
Bryan Preston: A “mere show of (American) air power could have scattered the enemies”
Yes, so true. And they could have lowered soldiers to FIND our people & get them out. Even if they were already dead, it would be the wise & proper get them OUT OF HELL, QUICKLY. That signal would be powerful. Don’t need their damn “PC”.
I have been covering this day one at my blog. As a former Foreign Service Officer, I have questioned the judgement of Stevens. I also list a number of other questions that have yet to be answered.
Because he was an idiot progressive that actually believed Oby’s fantasy that we could reset Arab relations by being nice guys, bowing and scraping and pretending that islamism is not the dominant political force in N Afrca, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Perhaps it would be more correct to ask: “Why did Ambassador Stevens return to Benghazi?”
The various timelines currently available don’t seem to have this information, but my understanding was that the Ambassador had arrived in Benghazi only hours before the attack. Coincidence, no?
If a deal had been made with the Muslim Brotherhood, that they would kidnap the Ambassador in exchange for the Blind Sheik, then doing nothing was appropriate. However, there were two Navy Seals there, and they didn’t get the “roll-over” memo. They fought back and things got out of hand. The Atlas Shrugged website claims that in Arabic, in the assualt video, people can heard yelling ‘we’re from Morsi.’ The fix was in, the fall guys just didn’t fall the way they were supposed to.
The SEALs were killed in the Annex, not in the consulate.
There was never any demonstration over the Video. It was about Obama spiking the ball about killing bin Laden and saying al Qaeda was on its heels. The Cairo Embassy protestors were chanting about Osama, and they planted an al Qaeda flag.
Being a “Gay” person, he got on the young Muslim train, in remote villages in the Atals region, N. Africa (Maghreb), he and his College days lovers were outed on Hillbuzz.org (a Chiacgo based-news providers)by way of reaching to gay Catholics, who easily pointed out that Stevens was not only Gay, but that sending to an islamic chaos a Gay person is utter madness. The media will not touch it because it is not politically correct, but it is also possible that he knew about Obama’s Gay history, his numerous daliances in the Gay bath houses, and was inclined to see the guy gone, one less person who can spill the dirt on him:
http://www.wnd.com/author/jcorsi/
divorce:
http://www.infiltratednation.com/2012/10/corsi-obamas-sexuality-play-role-in.html?m=1
http://hillbuzz.org/doom-antidote-evidence-that-democrats-are-in-last-days-of-pompeii-mode-10132012-10132012
http://hillbuzz.org/ten-important-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-second-presidential-debate-hofstras-romney-vs-obama-debate-on-10162012
I think I have come up with and answer to two mysteries at once: (1) why did they press so hard on that false story of the demonstrations? And (2) why did they do nothing while the embassy was being attacked?
The answer may be that because of the demonstrations in Egypt, they assumed that the attack in Libya was just just going to have the same effect. A few American flags torn down, a few effigies burned –no big deal. Even though they were watching in real time, they (stupidly) didn’t realized that the mortars and automatic weapons made this a different kind of event. Just another demonstration. Ho hum, America has it coming for being such a big meanie. Run and hide mister ambassador and tomorrow you can come out and make appeasing noises to the crowd.
When Obama woke up the next morning to find out what really happened, he and the rest of the people responsible for this disaster could not face the fact that they had messed up big time and gotten four Americans killed. They could not allow themselves to realize what a huge blunder they had made so they refused to give up their original assessment of the situation. It was just a demonstration that got out of control.
Or maybe the decision was more political than psychological. Those who sat in that room watching the embassy being overrun and doing nothing realized later what a huge mistake they had made and they assumed questions about this would start coming out immediately, so they were setting up a defense by saying that it started out as demonstration which did not require a military response. They decided that it was less risky to try to cover up the real nature of the attack than to try to explain why they didn’t do anything to save those American lives.
saying that it started out as demonstration which did not require a military response
would explain a lot.
And the big campaign/press jump on September 12 onto Romney, for his September 11 statement criticizing the US Cairo Embassy statements… Hmm. A spontaneous attack inspired by the realization of their total incompetence.
From the repeated denials of effective security for our ambassador to the scapegoating of a private citizen, the President and his government’s response to this event is outrageous and proves he is morally and intellectually unfit to hold the office.
Please, please, please, will everyone stop saying the Consulate in Benghazi was U.S. soil? It’s simply incorrect. Yes, Hollywood acts like embassies and consulates are foreign real estate, but they actually are more like buildings with diplomatic immunity. Also, Marines protect embassies (not consulates), and they are at embassies to protect classified intel, not people.
(Rant over. Resume criticizing the handling of the Benghazi incident, for there is plenty to be upset over. As a former FS officer, I’m appalled at the dangerous situations in which the State Department places some of its civilian bureaucrats these days.)
So in the last debate Obama feigned indignation and outrage, suggesting that Romney was using the death of a friend and coworker for political purposes. For once, I will accept a little of what the president says for something approaching the truth: that Stevens was indeed a friend and coworker. This is what Obama does to his friends. He deftly dangles them in the flame to be raped and murdered by primitives. To send a message. A message, it turns out, to his friends. Keep this in mind.
One of the many questions not asked by the MSM: why there wasn’t a LARGE pile of dead jihadis outside the gates of either battle site (the consulate or the “safe house”. Two of our countrymen died manning a machine gun nest on the roof of the safe house. Were they permitted live ammunition, unlike their colleagues in Cario? Or were they just sitting ducks, sent up to the roof to provide the illusion of a real defense?