Benghazi Project

Appendix

 

Episode 1

 

This episode aims to explore the history of Libya prior to the Benghazi Attack as well as trying to find out whether there were hints in Libya’s history that might have served as warning to the America government prior to the Benghazi attack.

 

Episode 1 Sources

 

Episode 2

 

Episode 2 looks at American intervention in Libya leading up to the Benghazi attack and the feelings of American and Libyan people to this involvement.

 

Episode 2 Sources:

  • United States, House of Representatives. Final Report of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, December 7, 2016. U.S. Government Publishing Office Washington: 2016.

 

Episode 3

 

This episode relays the details of the Benghazi Attack and the actions taken immediately after the events in 11 September 2012.

 

Episode 3 Sources:

  • Goldman, A. and Savage C. “Mixed Verdict for Libyan in Trial over Benghazi Attacks.” New York Times, vol. 167, no. 57796, 29 Nov. 2017, p. A9. EBSCOhost, 0-search.ebscohost.com.sophia.agnesscott.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fth&AN=126451550&site=eds-live.
  • United States, House of Representatives. Final Report of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, December 7, 2016. U.S. Government Publishing Office Washington: 2016.
  • “Chronology: Libya.” The Middle East Journal, vol. 67, no. 1, 2013, pp. 112-115. ProQuest, http://0-search.proquest.com.sophia.agnesscott.edu/docview/1289014847?accountid=8381.

 

Episode 4

 

This episode explores the very core of much of the debat related to the Benghazi attack- whether it could have been prevented. This episode looks into the security available and other conflicts surrounding the security detail in Benghazi.

 

Episode 4 Sources:

  • United States, House of Representatives. Final Report of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, December 7, 2016. U.S. Government Publishing Office Washington: 2016.

 

Episode 5

 

Episode 5 continues much on a similar note as episode 4, further looking at details of security and whether the United States government had known about security issues and what steps had been taken to address the need if there had been one.

 

Episode 5 Sources:

  • United States, House of Representatives. Final Report of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, December 7, 2016. U.S. Government Publishing Office Washington: 2016.

 

Episode 6

 

This episode will be looking at the implications of the Benghazi Attack to the public profile and opinion of Hillary Clinton. To further explore the effect of the Benghazi attack on her while acting as Head of Secretary of State this episode will look at the email scandal uncovered through investigations, the suing of her by parents of victims and whether she had a significant role in deciding American foreign policy in Libya.

 

Episode 6 Sources:

 

 

Cited from Washington Post- “For Hillary Clinton, the Benghazi Damage Has Been Done.”, 28 June 2016.

 

Episode 1: Libyan history leading up to the Benghazi attack

To understand the Benghazi attack it is important to take into consideration some of the histories of Libya leading up to the attack. In 2011 Muammar al- Qadhafi was overthrown and Libya’s future looked promising. Qadhafi lost power after pro-democracy movements known as the Arab Uprising spread across the Middle East and Northern Africa. Soon after that, a civil war ensued between anti-government groups and Qadhafi’s supporters. In October 2011, Qadhafi’s forces were conquered and he was killed putting an end to the civil war.

In July of 2012, Libya had its first national election in nearly 50 years which lead to 200 members being elected as part of the National Congress to start discussions on the new government. By the time of the Benghazi attack Libya still had no new government and civil order had not been fully restored. According to an expert review by Blanchard, ongoing attacks on international targets and assassination campaigns against senior security officers lead to much criticism of Libya’s interim leaders at the time.

“[a]ttacks on international targets, a series of aggressive attacks by armed Salafists on religious buildings around the country, and an assassination campaign against senior security officers have fueled widespread criticism of interim leaders since early 2012.”

The formation of violent Islamic terrorist groups is not unusual for countries having had recently experienced the political upheavals of the Arab Spring. Not only Libya but also Egypt, Tunisia and Syria faced similar difficulties with radical organizations. In addition to that most groups had little or no linkage to Al Qaeda.

“various factions and militias continue to vie for power in the absence of a stable political and security environment, often resulting in violence.” Nordstrom

The UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs in 2012, Jeffrey Feltman told the Security Council, the Benghazi attack other troubling attacks emphasizes the security challenges facing the authorities in Libya. It is this problem with security being mentioned which ultimately raises the questions which come to haunt the American government at the time and stays the focus of trying to understand the Benghazi Attack.

 

Episode 2: The US presence in Benghazi and opposition towards

The US government had a funding deadline which served as a push for Stevens’ trip, as well as an upcoming visit by Hillary Clinton, in the fall of 2012 provided another a motivating point for him to travel to Benghazi. It was hoped that a permanent consulate in Benghazi could be established and that Hillary Clinton could present to the Libyan government during her trip. Hicks,  discussed this with the Committee during the official hearings of the Benghazi Attack:

Q: Okay. We know that Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi on September 10th. Was there anything about his trip to Benghazi in September of 2012 that was sort of a precursor for the Secretary’s trip?

A: Well, you know, when we have a visit by a major political figure, like the Secretary of State, like the President, you know, we try to make that visit important publicly. And so we generally will create a list of what we call deliverables, items of importance to the bilateral relationship. So we hoped for the Secretary to announce the opening of a permanent consulate in Benghazi during her visit.

 

Q: Was there any reason that—was there anything related to making Benghazi a permanent post that was part of the purpose of Ambassador Stevens going to Benghazi in September?

 

A: Oh, absolutely. And so again, we had begun the process of developing a political rationale for having a permanent post in Benghazi. I sent in that rationale at the end of August to the executive director of the NEA [Near Eastern Affairs] bureau. We had begun a process of identifying locations and drawing plans for such a post.

Episode 3: What happened and why

Though a few members of the February 17 Brigade and the Libya Shield militia assisted the Americans on the night of the attack, the security that these militias and the local police provided to U.S. personnel was woefully inadequate to the dangerous security environment in Benghazi.

U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. The attack followed a protest in front of the US embassy in Cairo that resulted in other US embassies being stormed the exact same day.

Initially, the American government labelled the attack as a result of protests started because of anger against an anti- Islam film. However, there were no protests in Benghazi and the events have since been come to be labelled as terrorist acts.

The diplomatic compound was set on fire and Sean Smith and Stevens were killed in the fire. Hours later, militants attacked the nearby C.I.A. base with mortars and small-arms fire. Two C.I.A. security contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, were killed, and others were wounded

Episode 4: Possibility for prevention Pt.1

There seem to have been multiple warnings of the instability in Benghazi and the risk of attack to American personnel based on the accounts given during the Final Report.

None of the Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi had ever served at a high-threat post

the February 17 Martyrs Brigade militia, which provided interior armed security at the Benghazi Mission compound, informed the Diplomatic Security Agents two days before the Ambassador was scheduled to arrive it would no longer provide off-compound security.

 

One of these significant concerns was the security provided to the US facilities by the Libyan government.

 

Another issue that was concerning from the time the American personal entered Benghazi in 2012 was the instability in the region which displayed the issues in government which were the result of the Civil War.

The Principal Officer described the meeting: [T]here was a—it was a growing and nascent group of commanders who—militia commanders who were just becoming kind of players on the security scene. And some of the working assumptions were that they were doing this mainly for personal profit; others for religious and ideological reasons. It is trying to understand motivations of groups of people who may or may not become future leaders for the city of Benghazi or the country of Libya. So these folks were identified as people who fit that billet, essentially, security official officials who may or may not have aspirations for larger roles in Benghazi.

Q: [I]t looks like it’s the second to last sentence or third to last sentence, it begins: They criticized the [U.S. Government] for supporting National Forces Alliance leader and prime minister candidate Mahmoud Jibril. Do you recall what their criticism of the U.S. Government was?

 

A: Yeah. So ‘‘supporting’’ is in quotations, right, and which is a false accusation against the United States. We don’t support candidates in a foreign government’s internal domestic election. But the general perception, because Mahmoud Jibril is an American citizen as well as a Libyan, is that the United States Government was backing him. He was a big political player, former prime minister and someone who was gaining it seemed to be at that time someone who may end up with another very high ranking position in the Libyan Government. That did not meet these particular militia commanders’ idea of a beneficial Libyan structure for them, and so they were complaining about it.

 

Q: [Y]ou go on to write: If Jibril won, they said they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing.

What was your understanding of what they meant when they said they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi?

 

A: Yeah, I did not take that as a threat to U.S. interests, the U.S. compound, U.S. persons, or anything else. I took that more as a general discussion of Benghazi, the security situation in Benghazi is generally deteriorating if they at least their assertion that the general condition in Benghazi would deteriorate if they withdrew their security support.

 

Q: Did you understand what did they mean by withdrew their security support?

 

A: Well, I mean, that’s one of the questions I was asking, right. What do you do? Who are you? Why are you Libya 1? Why are you Libya 2? What’s your role? How do you fit into the security structure? And, as I said, you know, they didn’t really have a very good picture of it themselves, so I couldn’t come out with one.

 

This speaks to the disorganized nature of the groups providing security and even more so the lack of clear communication between the Americans and the Benghazi security force services.

During August 2012, the total number of State Department security agents assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli dropped from 34 individuals to six.30 Losing 28 security agents reduced not only the security resources available to the Embassy but also those available to the Benghazi Mission compound. With limited security agents in Tripoli, there were no surplus security agents to send to augment security in Benghazi—without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk (16)

we now have five Diplomatic security special agents protecting the Ambassador and Sean Smith. In Tripoli, we have four we have a Regional Security Officer and three Assistant Regional Security Officers to protect 28 diplomatic personnel (16)

Later in the evening of September 10th, Stevens—with Diplomatic Security Agents and GRS security—visited the Benghazi Local Council. Media was present upon his arrival.37 One of the Diplomatic Security Agents testified: Q: So, you knew prior to the council meeting that the press was going to show up? A: Yes, and we tried to turn that off, but unfortunately, we couldn’t. They showed up, but we sent them away. Q: Okay. Were you surprised to learn that there would be press at the council meeting? A: I was.38 Stevens’ visit to Benghazi, therefore, became public to the extent it was not otherwise known (17)

Notwithstanding the increasingly dangerous environment in eastern Libya in 2011 and 2012, the U.S. government did not have specific intelligence of an imminent attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. The lack of such actionable intelligence may reflect a failure in the IC to focus sufficiently on terrorist groups that have weak or no operational ties to core al Qaeda and its main affiliates. (7, Special report)

Although there was no specific intelligence of the attack on September 11, on further research of the attack it was described as not being a good enough reason for more steps being taken to ensure the safety of the US personnel and being ready with the necessary forces in case of attack. (9,SR)

Before the attack happened it was known that the Libyan government was unable to provide the necessary protection to the US Embassy in Benghazi. The Libyan Government’s inability to exercise full control over its territory due to the recently ended Civil War and continued active rebel groups made it obvious that it was unable to support the US Embassy’s facilities or personal success. (10)

When a state is unable to assistant another as in the case in Benghazi the Department of State must improve one or more of these protectors – Marine Corps Security Guards, Diplomatic Security agents, or private security contractors.

According to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,“[t]he receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.” (9-10 SR)

Department of State relied in part on a local militia, the February 17 Brigade, to provide protection for the Benghazi facility, as well as unarmed Libyan guards under contract with a private security firm (11, SR) Were not sure of the Brigade’s loyalty to the government or a actual desire to provide protection to the American facilities.

Eric Nordstrom, a regional security Officer in the U.S. State Department told the Committee that while the February 17 Brigade did provide some protection and would likely respond to an attack, they clearly needed additional training. In addition to that contract had expired but they were still required to grant protection to US personnel and facilities. Under the circumstances, Nordstrom argues that there was no other feasible alternative.

A Supreme Security Council was established to act as another form of security in Benghazi with hopes of stabilizing the security deficit. They however were unsuccessful and unable to bring order to the situation.

The numerous security details are a core to understanding why the Benghazi attack had catastrophic implications for those in the Embassy and the American Government in dealing with the court case.

Al Qaeda was blamed for the attack once it was released that the Benghazi attack was premeditated. However, the group was identified as Ansar al-Shariah and it was not considered as affiliated to Al Qaeda it was still a popular held sentiment by those in opposition to Obama’s government. This focus on Al Qaeda is also argued as being a reason for not foreseeing the attack by an outside group, which ultimately is what happened in the Benghazi attack.

Episode 5: They Had Warning

 

Episode 6: The effect of failure in Benghazi on the Democratic Government and Hillary Clinton

 

The Benghazi Attack resulted in one of the longest investigations in congressional history with a focus on Hillary Clinton. It is interesting that political issues from 2012 dragged into 2016 effectively slandering Hillary Clinton as the scandal was so fresh in the public’s mind Hillary Clinton was the Head of the State Department at the time of the Benghazi Attack in 2012. Questions of her involvement in the security intelligence being shared were raised throughout the hearing due to her private email account while operating as Head of the State Department.

 

Ontop of Hillary’s private email scandal her response to Senator. Ron Johnson where she said “What Difference Does It Make How Four Americans Died In Benghazi?”, went viral in a way that was also damaging to her campaign. The statement although said in moment of frustration did disturb public opinion of her from both sides of the political line. A statement like this raises questions to her trustworthiness as well as comes across as arrogant.

 

Parents of 2 Americans,  Sean Smith and Charles Woods, killed in the Benghazi attack tried suing Hillary Clinton for mishandling government secrets and ultimately leading to the death of the wrongful death of their sons. Filed the lawsuit to the federal court stating that because a private server had been used that allowed for information being leaked to terrorists who attacked the embassy. This case however did not lead to Hillary being held responsible for any of their deaths.

 

Over 848 pages of her emails were released by the State Department and although the emails do not implicate her in any obvious manner, they did raise scrutiny for her lack of involvement in security decisions and highlighted the deteriorating situation in Benghazi. Reports that Clinton received and circulated information of the situation in Benghazi highlighted the serious security challenges faced in Libya. In addition to that there are email gaps in crucial periods that raise further questions on Clinton as Secretary General at the time. Clinton was allegedly unwilling to provide access to her email server despite Lanny Davis, her defender previously saying she would have no problem with doing so. The only way that access could be granted to her private server would be through a court subpoenas forcing her to grant them access to her past history.

 

Sidney Blumenthal Clinton’s longtime confidant was implicated at the heart of questions with the emails. Blumenthal had been providing Clinton with outside intelligence on Libya and although some of the information was not accurate Clinton had circulated it to State Department advisers sometimes ordering specific actions to be taken. According to the New York Times Blumenthal had outside information because he was advising business associates seeking contracts with the Libyan government.

 

Her actions – communicating with other State Department personnel and advisors about the official business of the department – fall squarely within the scope of her duty to run the Department and conduct the foreign affairs of the nation as Secretary of State according to the judge in her hearing.

 

Despite the deliberations made in court exonerating Hillary Clinton’s from the results of the Benghazi attack that has not enough to change the view of her in the media or with the families of those who perished in the September 11 attacks.

 

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy argued that the main reason the Benghazi Committee was created was to deface Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and less focused on uncovering the facts.

 

Questions were raised of the communication that could have lead to untimely actions taken to prevent the attack. The use of a private email while serving as Secretary of State resulted in further investigations by the FBI and was arguably the more damaging to her campaign. In March 2015, at the beginning of the email scandal was hitting popular news sources Democrats 73% viewed her as trustworthy and by March 2016 by when the scandal had mainly died down in popular news, that figure dropped to 58% . This gives insight into the effect of the Benghazi Attack on public opinion. This clear uncertainty shown among Democrat supporters of the character of Hillary after the Benghazi scandal being linked to her, seem to be atleast part of the reason why the Democrats were not elected in the elections of November 2016.

 

Personal Reflection:

 

Taking this introductory course to World Politics has made me more aware of how truly complex world politics are. I was aware that  World Politics would be a complicated issue in practise but it was not until a study of the UN, the EU, exploration of statehood and sovereignty, and ultimately looking at how big global issues are dealt with such as the Rwandan genocide, Syrian Civil War and Global Warming that I understood that even the study of it is convoluted and raises numerous other questions. My understanding of cultures and particularly cultural ideologies throughout this course has really shed light on the way the world functions. The cultural ideas in America that we focused on of sovereignty, nationalism and democracy all influence the West’s interactions with the rest of the world. Whether it be admitting refugees or taking actions towards climate change- all of these responses are heavily based on the long standing principles and ideologies at the root of American society. I feel much more knowledgeable about specific events particularly related to the US but I do know that there is still much I am unaware of and in need to understand if I want to be truly well informed and versed when it comes to Global Politics. I do feel much more comfortable in terms of doing researching and finding reliable and objective information after completely the Benghazi Project especially. It comes as not only a skill but also a comfort to me being able to find and evaluate sources in the world today with so much untrustworthy information circulating.

I feel much more engaged in global affairs now and how they relate to me personally than at the start of the semester. I feel engaged because we have touched on a broad range of topics throughout the semester that fed into further questions and understandings of the way international politics works. It is that engagement that now stirs me to continue my study of International Affairs and World Politics both within and outside the classroom. This course has solidified in my mind what I would like to study and where my focus would lay. It has made me aware of at least some of the depth and difficult subject matter that I would be covering,  and although that makes me somewhat anxious it has also leaves me feeling very inspired.

 

css.php