Posted on Jul 18, 2017
Five Years After Benghazi, U.S. Diplomats Still Think ‘It’s Not Going To Happen To Me’
3.35K
20
15
7
7
0
I can't believe DOS is going to get cuts in funding under President Trump.
Five Years After Benghazi, U.S. Diplomats Still Think ‘It’s Not Going To Happen To Me’
Posted from thedailybeast.com
Benghazi
DoS
Budget
Safety
Special Forces
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
3
3
0
1
1
0
If Hillary was still in the State Department, it would continue on a regular basis.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Benghazi was an example of a DOS pushed over-extension of American presence in a war zone we helped facilitate. Clinton pushed for increased presence by Amb Stevens himself (something he believed in too). Sometimes leadership has to asses what they can do with the given security resources though. Amb Stevens should not have been in Benghazi in the first place, without the additional security he knew he needed. If the mission is that necessary, then DOS needs to find ways to divert funding from one region to another. Or they need to better defend their budget requests with Congress. They also should ensure there are military assets staged for emergency response, especially in a war zone.
Having grown up in the Embassy world, I can see exactly what the article is speaking of with regards to complacency within the diplomatic corps. My father was the military commander for the Embassy's MILGRP he served in. The MILGRP took security seriously, while many of the other Embassy personnel saw it as more of a nuisance. Never mind the fact we lived in a country in which the Ambassador and two MILGRP commanders were killed a couple of decades before our time there.
The problem in Libya was not just a security issue. There were a lot of factors leading to the tragedy. It started with our choice to help remove the government from power, followed by a decision not to re-divert security resources to that region from those without followed by not positioning military assets to respond to threats, followed by extending our presence after many of the other nation's pulled out due to security, followed by sending an ambassador to a location with minimal security to a location which was already assessed to be an easy target.
Having grown up in the Embassy world, I can see exactly what the article is speaking of with regards to complacency within the diplomatic corps. My father was the military commander for the Embassy's MILGRP he served in. The MILGRP took security seriously, while many of the other Embassy personnel saw it as more of a nuisance. Never mind the fact we lived in a country in which the Ambassador and two MILGRP commanders were killed a couple of decades before our time there.
The problem in Libya was not just a security issue. There were a lot of factors leading to the tragedy. It started with our choice to help remove the government from power, followed by a decision not to re-divert security resources to that region from those without followed by not positioning military assets to respond to threats, followed by extending our presence after many of the other nation's pulled out due to security, followed by sending an ambassador to a location with minimal security to a location which was already assessed to be an easy target.
(1)
(0)
Courtney Minturn
I am sorry but I respectfully disagree with the statements about about Hillary pushed for increased prescense, etc. We know Amb Stevens definitely wanted to be posted in Libya because he had enjoyed his previous time there & requested to return. I completely disagree about Clinton and concerns by herself or DOS for extra security in Benghazi. I am not saying this to be rude but I have studied Benghazi since the events of that night, I know people on the ground, I worked for the CIA, I study politics and am a Published Political Writer. Hillary, DOS and entire Administration had no concern about security for Benghazi. Remember, at that time Hillary and Obama were running on the ticket of "there is peace in the Middle East" so even though "her friend Amb. Stevens" requested additional security because it was not only the Anniversary of 9/11 but there was also chatter and personnel on site had noticed picture taking by foreign nationals of the site. There was no way in hell that Hillary and Obama were going to send any type of Security to Benghazi even for "her friend Amb. Stevens" because the Administration didn't want to bring attention to sending additional security to Benghazi because it didn't fit into their narrative of "there is peace in the Middle East". That is a fact. All they were concerned about was winning the election so they could obtain MILLIONS (FOR THEMSELVES), power and allowing ISIS to form across the Middle East. They did not care that our men and women were fighting for their lives in Benghazi. We had Troops that COULD HAVE MADE IT THERE IN TIME TO ASSIST BUT THEY WERE TOLD TO STAND DOWN. Our Military has always fought to leave no one behind and here they are waiting and waiting for over 13 hours for any type of Military assistance to help them fight off the terrorists and try to protect and save Amb. Stevens" and entire staff in Benghazi while disgusting, greedy, corrupt Hillary and Obama sat and watched in real time as "her friend Amb. Stevens", 2 Seals and 1 Specialist were murdered as they watched in real time - remember, sending no assistance, and watching them all fight for their lives. It is dispicable and I still write about it because I want justice for Benghazi4 and all of the victims & their families! I am still writing so that Hillary and Obama will be held accountable for what they ALLOWED TO HAPPEN SO THEY COULD WIN AN ELECTION. They were so upset about it that Obama went and packed for his fundraiser to party with Celebrities in Las Vegas the next day and night. As Hillary and Susan Rice changed the story to blame a ridiculous video. Hillary, Rice, Obama and entire Admin still need to be held accountable and should be in prison! I can't wait til they are held responsible for the MURDERS IN BENGHAZI THAT IS DUE TO THEM, AND I CAN'T WAIT FOR THEM TO BE SENT TO PRISON! I WILL CONTINUE MY FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR BENGHAZI - THE VICTIMS THAT DIED THAT NIGHT, AND THE HEROES THAT FOUGHT TO SAVE THEM FOR OVER 13 HOURS IN BENGHAZI. There was never a concern for Security for Benghazi (or the rest of the Middle East) as we all watched and told the President you must leave a stabilizing force behind in Iraq. He didn't do it, he allowed ISIS to form (knowing full well they were not a JV Team) and he did everything possible to push our Allies away and become best friends with our enemies. He and Hillary were never concerned for the security of our Military, our Bases around the world, or our civilians. Everything has been all about how can they cash in and grab power. I can't wait til they are in prison. The issue about security for any of our bases overseas was of no concern for Hillary and the rest of the Administration. Security for themselves was a priority but the rest of us didn't count. They are disgraceful and they need to be held accountable immediately! Sorry for the rant but I am very, very outraged about Benghazi4 and Extortion17 and continue to seek justice!
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Courtney Minturn - What Amb Steven's desired for a diplomatic post and what the white house decided to push for (specifically the Sec of State, which IS on the record) are two different issues. Also, I did not say that Amb Steven was not a willing candidate in the endeavor to extend US reach in the region. That's irrelevant. The fact is, we were overextended and the Secretary of State / President should have recognized that and either re-prioritize funds, held off on increasing presence, or owned up to their tragic mistake after they made a bad call. Amb Stevens and the US Embassy security are on record requesting the assistance. Whether it got to Clinton's desk or not is also irrelevant as it is HER organization to which she is responsible for. Amb Stevens also requested it repeatedly over a period of time, not a short period leading up to 9/11. That said, I get the background and I do understand the issues from an intelligence perspective, a military perspective (with experience in combat zones), and a perspective of having worked in an Embassy, with the DOS, and from observing DOS practices.
As for the security. There are two parts to this. One there was a lack of staged military assets missing, specifically tasked to be prepared to respond to attacks on US personnel in Libya (especially if the Ambassador is going to travel across country). Be it off the coast of Libya or somewhere else nearby, it should have been there. Look at each of the other war zones we are participating in and you have those assets (Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan etc...). It is also not SOP for an Ambassador in a war zone to travel across country without the proper security assets in place (both personally assigned and at that location). I've seen, read, and helped develop SOP for Embassy security operations for far less hazardous AORs (but still considered dangerous), which would used similar security measures as were used in this case in Libya. The problem was, none of those places were active war zones we helped facilitate, thus warranting increased security presence.
You are correct in what motivated the decision not to stage better assets was politically driven during an election period. In that lies the issue I took with the admin and the Secretary of State who later decided to run for President. They put their political aspirations above the safety and security of their personnel. And all for something the American people didn't really believe anyway (that there was more peace in the ME... BS). I also agree with the fact that we failed our people in Libya by not at least trying to send military assistance, especially when we did not know what they outcome of Amb Stevens was during the 13 hours.
Now, I don't know why you seem to be arguing with me as we do agree with much of what you added. My statement on Amb Stevens is to highlight what led to the tragedy and that I too hold Clinton and Obama responsible. I have personally seen the complacency and disregard for security measures by DOS personnel on multiple occasions. I've seen it as fas back as when I was a kid working as a summer hire in US Embassy, I've seen it while working with DOS as a staff officer for a COCOM, and I've seen in a combat zone (Afghanistan). DOS is one of the worst agencies to work with when you are in the military. They look down on you, they think they're better than you, and they ignore expert military advice when it doesn't suit their needs. The movie 13 hours actually did an excellent job at highlighting many of those nuances .
As for the security. There are two parts to this. One there was a lack of staged military assets missing, specifically tasked to be prepared to respond to attacks on US personnel in Libya (especially if the Ambassador is going to travel across country). Be it off the coast of Libya or somewhere else nearby, it should have been there. Look at each of the other war zones we are participating in and you have those assets (Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan etc...). It is also not SOP for an Ambassador in a war zone to travel across country without the proper security assets in place (both personally assigned and at that location). I've seen, read, and helped develop SOP for Embassy security operations for far less hazardous AORs (but still considered dangerous), which would used similar security measures as were used in this case in Libya. The problem was, none of those places were active war zones we helped facilitate, thus warranting increased security presence.
You are correct in what motivated the decision not to stage better assets was politically driven during an election period. In that lies the issue I took with the admin and the Secretary of State who later decided to run for President. They put their political aspirations above the safety and security of their personnel. And all for something the American people didn't really believe anyway (that there was more peace in the ME... BS). I also agree with the fact that we failed our people in Libya by not at least trying to send military assistance, especially when we did not know what they outcome of Amb Stevens was during the 13 hours.
Now, I don't know why you seem to be arguing with me as we do agree with much of what you added. My statement on Amb Stevens is to highlight what led to the tragedy and that I too hold Clinton and Obama responsible. I have personally seen the complacency and disregard for security measures by DOS personnel on multiple occasions. I've seen it as fas back as when I was a kid working as a summer hire in US Embassy, I've seen it while working with DOS as a staff officer for a COCOM, and I've seen in a combat zone (Afghanistan). DOS is one of the worst agencies to work with when you are in the military. They look down on you, they think they're better than you, and they ignore expert military advice when it doesn't suit their needs. The movie 13 hours actually did an excellent job at highlighting many of those nuances .
(1)
(0)
Courtney Minturn
Hi Major Annonymous, please know that I was not trying to sound as if I am arguing - I just wanted to make the point about the lack of Security and you are correct, Amb. Stevens was requesting additional Security for a longer period of time. I know you understand Benghazi and the lack of Security but I just wanted to make a point about the Security because so many people really don't realiize that we could have avoided this tragedy and it was extremely reckless. We agree - I was just trying to show others the part about the lack of security and the true reason behind it and I concur. Sorry about the misunderstanding because I agree. Thank you!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google