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.
"The United States
"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 America
"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)
"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
"We were not
aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Benghazi
"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)
"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
“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)
"It is, I think,
self-evident that what happened in Benghazi
"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.
“It became clear
within about a day of the Benghazi
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
- June
2012, there was an assault on a convoy in
- June
2012, assailants placed an explosive device on a gate of the
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:
- If security concerns were raised by the people on the ground, why were they not addressed?
- Were these threats discredited? And if so, by whom?
- 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.
- 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:
Post a Comment