Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Lessons Unlearned. The Attack on the Consulate in Benghazi



This is long, but be patient. Consider it an introductory course called: Dignitary Protection 101

It has been three weeks since the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and each day that passes seems to bring only more troubling news. I know many people have questions about all of it, and I figured I would throw my educated two cents into the arena and see if I can help the average person understand a little better.

I served from 1994-1998 with the NYPD Intelligence Division as both a Detective and Sergeant. In this capacity I conducted dignitary protection assignments for high profile dignitaries to include Pope John Paul II, President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, and too many others to name. In addition, I conducted numerous security threat assessments. I mention this only for the sake of establishing my bona fides on this matter.

Before we go any further, here is a little primer on Libya. First, ancient Libya dates back to around 8,000 BC. It has only existed as an independent state since 1951.  In September 1969, a group of military officers led by army officer Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d'état against King Idris who had served as Monarch since 1951. Gaddafi would lead the country until a violent civil war in 2011. This civil war   occurred as part of the “Arab Spring” from February 2011 until October 2011. It resulted in the ousting and death of Gaddafi, and the collapse of his Jamahiriya state. At least 30,000 Libyans died in the civil war.

In August 2012, the National Transitional Council officially handed power to the elected General National Congress, which was  tasked with the formation of an interim government and the drafting of a new Libyan Constitution. Sectarian violence continues to plague the country. In short, the situation in Libya remains unstable.

September 11th, 2012, (the 11th Anniversary of the September 11th attacks) the consulate in Benghazi is attacked, resulting in the deaths of four Americans. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he became trapped inside the burning consulate. Another diplomatic staffer, Sean Smith, also died at the compound.

Two U.S. security personnel, former Navy SEAL’s Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed later when the safe house, to which some thirty-seven personnel retreated, came under mortar attack. According to those involved in the battle the mortar attack was done with such precision that they could only conclude that they were up against experienced fighters.

As you read the following, I want you to consider that the battle between the terrorists and the American & Libyan forces lasted four and half hours and at two separate locations, the secondary compound where the two security officers died was ½ mile away. This was not a hit and run attack but a well planned and well executed military style attack.

September 12th, 2012, the following comments are made:

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." - President Barack Obama

"We had a tough day today as some of you know" - President Barack Obama (while at a fund raising event in Las Vegas)

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear, there is no justification for this, none." – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time." - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (when asked f the attack had been planned)

September 13th, 2012, the following comments are made:

"The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States." - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

"It was not an innocent mob. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack." – Senior U.S. Official

Until we have a chance to investigate, along with the Libyans... So I know that's going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don't jump to conclusions. That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating." - State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland

September 14th, 2012, the following comments are made:

"We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

September 16th, 2012, the following comments are made:

"But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent." - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice (This echoes similar statements made by her on numerous other press shows that morning)

September 18th, 2012, the following comments are made:

"Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped, that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.” - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

September 19th, 2012, the following comments are made:

Right now I'm saying we don't have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a… to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary." - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

"They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olson (responding to a question by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman on whether the attack was a terrorist attack)

September 20th, 2012, the following comments are made:

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials." - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."  - President Barack Obama

September 27th, 2012, the following comments are made:

It became clear within about a day of the Benghazi attack that it had been the work of terrorists” - Senior U.S. Official (to CNN)

October 2nd, 2012

Congressmen Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz send a letter to Secretary of State Clinton that outlined a dozen incidents that predated the attack which raised serious security concerns. The information about the previous security requests allegedly came from individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya.

Among the incidents noted in the letter were the following:

  • April 2012, a gun battle erupted about two miles from the consulate between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the transitional government.

  • April 2012, two Libyans fired from a contractor providing security at the consulate threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence. There were no casualties.

  • June 2012, a posting on a Facebook page mentioned Stevens' early morning runs around Tripoli along with members of his security detail. The page contained a threat against Stevens and a stock photo of him. Stevens stopped the runs for about a week, but then resumed.

  • June 2012, there was an assault on a convoy in Benghazi carrying Britain's ambassador to Libya. He was not hurt, but two of his bodyguards were.

  • June 2012, assailants placed an explosive device on a gate of the U.S. consulate, which blew a hole in the security perimeter."

Weeks before the attacks, the Libyan guards at the consulate, employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group, were warned by family members to quit their jobs because there were rumors of an impending attack.

In fact, it has come to light recently that Blue Mountain Libya felt the security provided by the UK partner was "substandard and the situation was unworkable." But when they tried to bring in a third party, an American contractor, to improve security, a State Department contract officer declined to get involved.

The bottom line is that the Benghazi area of Libya was known as a bad place. It is considered to be a hotbed of Jihadism and where large numbers of weapons had been looted from military depots during the civil war. Based upon this information alone, the consulate should have been designated as “Critical Threat – Terrorism” or “Civil Unrest Posting.” What it was in reality was a rented villa that provided no more security than your home does. Someone, somewhere, knowing the information above, signed off on it being used as a consulate. I guess when you are on the other side of the world the threat doesn’t seem too serious.

Consider that it has been three weeks now and the FBI still has not gotten in to search the crime scene. If you can’t get into a place three weeks after the attack, it raises the question “why were you there in the first place?”

What troubles me is the fact that CNN, a cable news station, was able to gain access to the consulate after the attack and even obtained the Ambassador’s journal. All crime scene issues aside, the journal provides some insight into what the people on the ground were thinking before the attack. As a result CNN reported that Stevens was worried about never-ending security threats, the rise in Islamic extremism, and being included on an Al Qaeda hit list.

OK, so a cable news station can gain access to a crime scene that our FBI cannot go to because it is still too dangerous. Seriously?

In fact, consider this for a moment. In what can only be attributed to a case of prophetic gallows humor, staffer Sean Smith, an avid video gamer typed a message to a friend the night of the attack in which he is reported to have said “assuming we don’t die tonight…. We saw one of our ’police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

The holes in this tale are so ludicrous that they would be funny, save for the fact that we lost four Americans.

My question is, from a threat assessment point of view:

  1. If security concerns were raised by the people on the ground, why were they not addressed?
  2. Were these threats discredited? And if so, by whom?
  3. The consulate, situated in a very dangerous area, was considered “lock and key” which meant it afforded no protection other than its structure. This means it had no other security features common to embassies such as bulletproof glass or reinforced doors.
  4. Why, given the recent physical attacks on the consulate, including one by former security officers, was the Ambassador there on the anniversary of 9/11?

As someone who has done threat assessments, it is inconceivable to me, under the known conditions that existed at the time, that requests for additional security were denied.

The bombings, crude as they may have been, coupled with the attack on the British Ambassadors motorcade are events that easily demonstrate a “clear and present danger.” In addition to the attack on the British Ambassador, there had also been an attack on a United Nations convoy. Clearly there were ongoing terrorist ops in the area.

In conducting an assessment, you try to plan for “everything” and then pray nothing happens. You have to be right 100% of the time and they only have to be right once. It is a sad fact. So you try to do everything in your power to make sure that you have eliminated anything you can control.

What did the assessment in Benghazi determine? Well according to intelligence sources familiar with the situation, no assessment was ever done before the Ambassador took up residence. This is completely inexcusable.

On top of this, where was the protection? Given the conditions in Benghazi you would have thought the Ambassador would have had a large security contingent. Apparently there were only four armed Americans in the compound, one of whom had to sprint through the complex to the Ambassadors building, under fire, but by then it was too late.  

In fact, well after the attack began, they had to fly U.S. Marines in by helicopter from the embassy in Tripoli, a distance of over 400 miles, to help aid in the defense.

How much sense does that make? It’s like having the CAT (Counter Attack Team) element of the presidential protection detail in western Pennsylvania, while the President is attending a fund raiser in Manhattan.

In terms of responsibility and who is at fault? To be honest, there are a lot of people who potentially have culpability. Surely there will be a number of people who will have to explain what they did or didn’t do. Of course, with the Ambassador dead, it is going to be a one sided conversation. I personally believe this is a State Department issue, unless their actions were directed by someone outside the agency.

Where does this leave the President and the White House?

The other day I heard someone say “this was Obama’s 3:00am call.” Sadly, that’s not even correct; it’s actually the complete opposite. The attack began at approximately 10:00pm, which would translate to 3pm D.C. time. This means, even after the attack was over it was still only around 9:00 pm. Given the capabilities of the United States government, there is no way that that the President did not know that this attack was more than just a mob response to some obscure video. Surely he would have been advised of the nature of the attack.

Like I said, I don’t know if there is any culpability on their part pertaining to the extremely lax security. However, I’m profoundly disgusted by the fact that the day after this vicious attack, he still felt it was appropriate to go to Las Vegas for a fund raising event. However, that is a matter for voters to decide on.

In 1994, when I was in the rookie stage of my dignitary protection career, I had the good fortune to be assigned with a veteran special agent for the United States Secret Service. He became my mentor in conducting site / threat assessments. He had served in a number of high profile details, including presidential protection and told me that I would never ask a dumb question.

One day I remember asking him why we were making a particular request for security at what appeared to me to be an insignificant location. I never forgot his answer: “So that you and I never have to stand in front of Congress, with our right hands raised, and explain why we didn’t post it.”

Somewhere in D.C. there are a number of folks who, God willing, are going to have to face that reality and explain to Congress, and the American people, why they denied those requests.

Sadly, for the families of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Staffer Sean Smith and SEAL’s Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, those answers will be too little and much too late.

No comments: