The man and the burning auto

This photo appeared with a post by Will Bunch, Tell me what is being done in my name -- in Benghazi Attytood 08/01/2013. Will isn't some Benghazi! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!! conservative. But I'll get to his topic below.

Seeing that photo reminded me of how the press internationally uses such a photo to represent "revolution." A man - it's usually a man - standing in front of something on fire and his balled fist in the air. In this case holding a rifle. Presumably this one is from Benghazi. But it's not captioned at the post. And I'm not sure it's important.

I get it that's it's a sensational kind of image. Inspiring and scary at the same time, depending on whether you imagine the figure is on Your Side or not.

But it also is an image of revolution as an action movie. Actual revolutions - Egypt, Tunisia - pick from pretty much any of them over the last two centuries usually include some violence in some form. Sometimes a lot of it. A civil war lot of it.

But revolutions are also political events. And like other political events, they involved a lot of patient politicking, organizing meetings, coordinating with others, using all kinds of methods to get the message out, endless infighting with others nominally on Your Side, raising money, getting out the vote, getting out the protesters, mounting legal defenses for those arrested, cultivating reporters, schmoozing with politicians.

There's a famous saying, "War is long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror." Something like that is also true for revolutions, even ones that involve little violence. We could add moments of high excitement and triumph to the moments of terror and hopelessness.

Images like those above give a very truncated, impoverished view of this process.

I'm also struck by how widely such images are associated with revolution or social turmoil that it hardly needs a caption. Yet the bare image doesn't tell us much. Is it in Benghazi or in Pittsburgh? The car behind the man appears to be burning. But why? Is this some local equivalent of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Or is it some minor and forgettable side incident that is part of a larger event? Did the man with the rifle start the fire? And why? Or is it his car and he say it burning and came running out of his house with his rifle to shoot whoever set his car or fire? Is it part of a political event or part of a gang war? Or both?

The main topic of the post itself actually has nothing directly to do with shooting or protesting or burning cars. It has to do with CIA employees being subjected to lie-detector tests to make sure they are not talking about what happened in Benghazi last September when the American consulate there was attacked. Bunch writes:

I don't know about you, but allegations that the CIA is intimidating people to keep quiet gets my back up. It's a point that I've been making here again and again -- that the American government is keeping too many secrets, too afraid to let the public that they allegedly work for know what they're doing. So let's be clear: It's time for people to pick a side. If you support getting to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi, then you support Edward Snowden and his whistleblowing efforts with the NSA. It's not pro-Obama or anti-Obama, or pro-CIA or anti-CIA. You either support greater transparency in government, or you support a runaway national security state.

Tags: benghazi attack

The September Benghazi attack and the new independent review board report on it

I haven't followed every twist and turn of the "Benghazi" controversy. Mainly because the Republicans who have been flogging their own version of it have been pretty hysterical about it and approached it in their now-customary frivolous manner.

But there were always things about the attack and the aftermath that bothered me other than the obvious fact of an American diplomatic post being assaulted and Americans servicing there killed.

Glenn Greenwald early on focused on some of the larger questions about the Libyan intervention that were highlighted - or should have been - by the attack in The tragic consulate killings in Libya and America's hierarchy of human life The Guardian 09/12/2012, the day after the attack:

Drawing conclusions about Libya, and the US intervention there, from this situation would be unfair and far too premature. This does, however, highlight the rampant violence, lawlessness, militia thuggery, and general instability that has plagued that country since Gadaffi's removal from power. Moreover, given all the questions, largely ignored, about who it was exactly whom the US was arming and empowering in that country during the intervention, and what the unexpected consequences of doing that might be, it is vital to know how the attackers came into possession of rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weaponry.

This event also serves as a crucial reminder, yet again, that merely removing a heinous dictator is not proof that the intervention was successful, just or worthwhile. To assess that question, one must know what will follow in that country, for its people, once the intervening powers have removed the government. Declarations of victory and vindication over the intervention in Libya have always been premature, self-serving and baseless – precisely because that crucial fact is yet unknown. We can only hope that Tuesday's events do not presage a depressing answer to that question.

Glenn's column reflects the early reports that said the attacks followed on a demonstration outside the consulate over the anti-Muslim propaganda film that generated angry demonstrations in Egypt.

The Obama Administration held on to that explanation for a week or so, and from subsequent reporting it appears that the CIA was continuing to present that version to Administration officials. Republicans bitterly attacked the State Department's Susan Rice for presenting that version on TV days later. In noted here on 09/14/2012 (The anti-Muslim propaganda film and protests against America):

This story from McClatchy's Nancy Youssef and Suliman Ali Zway, No protest before Benghazi attack, wounded Libyan guard says 09/13/2012, discusses evidence "that the assault on the compound that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was a planned attack by armed Islamists and not the outgrowth of a protest over an online video that mocks Islam and its founder, the Prophet Muhammad." The timing may have been related to the date of 9/11 and there doesn't seem to be much indication that protesting the film was even nominally involved in that assault.

Regardless of what the CIA reports were saying, there was an ideological spin on the White House's framing of the attack in the days following it. As Glenn Greenwald observed in Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruth 09/20/2012, which I discussed in Glenn Greenwald on the stories around the Benghazi attack on the American consulate last week 09/20/2012. I also talked about the ideological spin in Al Qa'ida: Bin Laden's band or a mythological tradition? 09/21/2012.

The Republican criticism of Obama's handling of the attack focused on the silly issues of whether Obama and his Administration called the attack "terrorist" soon enough, the issue on which Mitt Romney famously embarrassed himself on one of the Presidential debates.

Now an independent review panel has reviewed the incident, and at least three State Department officials have leftd as a result, according to this report by Three State Department staff resign after scathing report blasts State over Benghazi consulate attacks Global Post 12/19/2012. As Glenn put it in his 09/20/2012 column, using the story about the attack apparently being generated by an anti-Muslim film by a private person minimized any Administration's culpability: "the claim that this attack was just about anger over an anti-Muhammad video completely absolves the US government of any responsibility or even role in provoking the anti-American rage driving it." (I've often seen the Benghazi outpost described as a consulate, which it functionally may have been; but officially it was considered a "Special Mission".)

The unclassified version of the report is available online, Accountability Review Board (ARB) Report (Unclassified) 12/19/2012. The ARB's report also endorses and expansive view of the "al Qaeda" threat:

The Benghazi attacks also took place in a context in which the global terrorism threat as most often represented by al Qaeda (AQ) is fragmenting and increasingly devolving to local affiliates and other actors who share many of AQ’s aims, including violent anti-Americanism, without necessarily being organized or operated under direct AQ command and control. This growing, diffuse range of terrorist and hostile actors poses an additional challenge to American security officers, diplomats, development professionals and decision-makers seeking to mitigate risk and remain active in high threat environments without resorting to an unacceptable total fortress and stay-at-home approach to U.S. diplomacy.

But Republicans have no interest in challenging that narrative.

They are looking instead to promote the notion of recklessness or dishonestly about factual events and a soft-on-terrorism accusation against the Administration.

But the ARB report does suggest some significant bad management by the State Department in handling matters in Libya, problems that may affect other areas of their operations as well. Without excusing or minimizing the responsibility of the managers directly involved, it should also be a reminder of the degree to which foreign policy has been militarized and the State Department generally underfunded at often publicly depreciated, especially since 9/11. Remember back in 2003, when Glorious Warlord George Bush, Liberator of Peoples, was at the height of his prestige and Pat Robertson suggested blowing up the State Department?

But it doesn't seem to justify any attitude of recklessness or neglect on the State Department's part around the September 11 anniversary date or after the attack began:

Post and the Department were well aware of the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but at no time were there ever any specific, credible threats against the mission in Benghazi related to the September 11 anniversary.

Ambassador Stevens and Benghazi-based DS agents had taken the anniversary into account and decided to hold all meetings on-compound on September 11. The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassador’s trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments. ...

The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.

The report does note, obliquely, "Special Mission Benghazi's uncertain future after 2012 and its "non-status" as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left responsibility to meet security standards to the working-level in the field, with very limited resources." I suspect there's more to that story than the unclassified report suggests, i.e., that there were particular reasons that may or may not have justified minimizing overt security measures to keep the consulate low-profile.

In fact, given what the report describes about the situation in Benghazi, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Special Mission was heavily involved in covert operations in some way, though the ARB report does not say that. What it does say is:

While the June IED attack and the RPG attack targeting the UK convoy in Benghazi prompted the Special Mission to reduce movements off compound and have a one-week pause between principal officers, the successful nature of Libya’s July 7, 2012, national elections – which exceeded expectations – renewed Washington’s optimism in Libya’s future. Nevertheless, the immediate period after the elections did not see the central government increase its capacity to consolidate control or provide security in eastern Libya, as efforts to form a government floundered and extremist militias in and outside Benghazi continued to work to strengthen their grip. At the time of the September attacks, Benghazi remained a lawless town nominally controlled by the Supreme Security Council (SSC) – a coalition of militia elements loosely cobbled into a single force to provide interim security – but in reality run by a diverse group of local Islamist militias, each of whose strength ebbed and flowed depending on the ever-shifting alliances and loyalties of various members. There was a notional national police presence, but it was ineffectual. By August 2012, Special Mission Benghazi would evaluate the worsening security situation and its implications.

Tags: benghazi attack, libya

Benghazi attack feeding frenzy

Our Constitutional system was predicated, certainly in James Madison's mind, on a belief that competing ambitions among the various levels (local, state, federal) and branches (executive, legislative, judicial) would act as practical barriers to tyranny by, among other things, highlighting real and potential abuses of power.

The guys meeting in Philadelphia in 1789 to work on the Constitution weren't thinking in terms of political parties as we know them today, though they would develop soon enough. Partisan conflict can and has served some of the same function as other separation-of-powers institutions.

But for that to work, the party pursuing an investigation against a rival party needs to be reasonably reality-based. That's a bit much to expect of today's Republican Party. Since they endlessly pursued Bill Clinton in the 1990s over the Whitewater land deal and only came up with a rather sad love affair, and then used that as a club to impeach the President, their dependence on actual facts to justify jumping up and down and screaming about dirty deals and treason and whatever has decrease rather than increased.

So if any useful facts come out of the current Congressional investigations about the Benghazi attacks, it will probably be more to accident than to careful design of the investigations. Digby reminds us in Benghazi smell test Hullabaloo 11/15/2012 of how the present Republican scandal machine works:

It's also a very common form of right wing scandal mongering. They excel at "smell test" insinuations, ginning up the sense that there must be something very wrong with a flurry of questions, not necessarily related or leading to any obvious conclusion, but always leading to the impression that something very important was being covered up.

And the press inevitably loses its moorings, running around chasing each "lead" never really sure of exactly what they're looking for until the scandal takes on a life of its own. This one is on the verge of becoming one of those scandals, especially now that sexytime's on the menu.

There's no there there. It's exactly how Kevin describes it. But that isn't stopping the press from talking about "benghazi" [sic] as a "massive intelligence failure and cover-up" featuring John McCain every five minutes ranting about "fecklessness" and pretty much taking it upon himself to destroy Susan Rice over nothing. It's what they do.

For the benefit of at least historians, there would be some value in Congress looking carefully at what happened. Back in September just after the attack, I referred to some contradictory aspects of the story as it was then emerging (Varying versions of embassy-attack crisis incidents 09/17/2012):

The Obama Administration is going with the story that the Libya consulate attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens was an outgrowth of a protest of the Innocence of Muslims YouTube trailer and (alleged) film. Our UN Ambassador Susan Rice reiterated that position Sunday. (Ambassador Rice: Benghazi attack began spontaneously NBC News US 09/16/2012) The Libyan government is taking a different position, as Brad Knickerbocker reports in Libya attack: US doubts that Al Qaeda planned ahead 09/16/2012:

Rice’s comments put her at odds with Libyan officials, who continue to insist that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans was planned well in advance of the protests that began on the anniversary of 9/11 and spread around the world.

"It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday.

So far, Libyan authorities have arrested some 50 individuals suspected of being connected to last week’s attack. President Magarief told CBS the suspects are connected to Al Qaeda, or are affiliates and sympathizers.

"We don't know what are the real intentions of these perpetrators," he said. "They entered Libya from different directions. Some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria."

Nancy Youssef and Amina Ismail report for McClatchy Newspapers (Anti-U.S. outrage over video began with Christian activist’s phone call to a reporter 09/15/20012):

Whether the Benghazi attack was linked to anger over the video remains uncertain – witnesses have said there was no protest preceding the attack – but the trauma of those deaths will likely scar U.S. perceptions for years, and while Saturday seemed calm across the region, the U.S. State Department made clear it fears the violence has not ended.

Later reports indicated that the CIA continued reporting that there was a demonstration over the anti-Muhammad YouTube video but they eventually confirmed that there had not been.

But that doesn't mean that anything nefarious was going on in the official statements. Initial reports on these incidents often get things wrong. Since diplomatic personnel were killed, it's easy to imagine that the CIA would want to be especially careful in putting out revised reports until they were verified. And it also seems plausible enough on the face of it that a well-prepared militia group could have decided on the attack on the US Benghazi consulate after hearing about the video. And the Libyan government presumably had their own reasons for spinning the information a certain way, potentially including trying to give an accurate report.

I'm also intrigued by something that former CIA director David Petraeus' close friend and unofficial spokesperson Paula Broadwell said a couple of weeks ago (Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman, Mistress Revealed CIA Ops as Petraeus’ Mouthpiece Danger Room 11/12/2012):

In an Oct. 26 alumni symposium at the University of Denver, Paula Broadwell said that the CIA annex at the Benghazi consulate came under assault on Sept. 11 because it had earlier “taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.” (That information was not part of the CIA’s timeline of the Benghazi assault, though Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin did mention it on air. Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reports that the CIA has denied any such detention.) “I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this,” Broadwell prefaced her remarks by saying. [my emphasis]

If the CIA was holding prisoners, that opens up a whole other potential useful and revealing line of inquiry. I don't know the particulars of how it affects official consular status, but it does provide a very substantial and practical reason that a militia might plausibly want to attack the place, whether or not the timing of the attack was affected by the anti-Muhammad video and the other protests around it.

And, as Marcy Wheeler notes in The February 17 Brigade Liberates the Prisoners Emptywheel 11/12/2012 suggests that the Administration may have some interest in covering up "that the militia that was supposedly friendly–indeed, had been friendly and responsive going back some months – was undermining us in this case."

So there are real and substantial questions surrounding the Benghazi attack. But there's good reason to doubt that those are the ones the Republicans will be asking.

Tags: benghazi attack, libya