WP: Review of Benghazi attack faults ‘grossly’ inadequate security, leadership failures

[Redskins Diehard]

An independent investigation of the fatal attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya on Sept. 11 found that “grossly” inadequate security and reliance on local militias left U.S. diplomats and other personnel vulnerable, the State Department told Congress on Tuesday.

........

Officials said Clinton will ask Congress to transfer $1.3 billion in money allocated to Iraq. The funds would be used for additional Marine guards, diplomatic security personnel and security improvements at U.S. missions overseas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/benghazi-panel-presents-findings-to-lawmakers-makes-recommendations/2012/12/18/9ada6032-495c-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?hpid=z1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am surprised that the Secretary cited "serious, systemic challenges". I thought/think that places like Benghazi fall in this gray area between standard US mission and warzone mission. Will be interesting to see what else is in the report.

I also find it interesting that she has requested more funding for more Marine Guards. Especially after there were some pretty adamant "experts" in other threads that claimed that Marines don't provide security for people.

[Corcaigh]

"reliance on local militias left U.S. diplomats and other personnel vulnerable"

So relying on local armed militia isn't a good form of defense against violent threats?

I just don't know what to believe any more.

[Redskins Diehard]

"reliance on local militias left U.S. diplomats and other personnel vulnerable"

So relying on local armed militia isn't a good form of defense against violent threats?

I just don't know what to believe any more.

That goes along with what I am saying about Benghazi falling somewhere between a warzone and a standard diplomatic mission.

I'm not surprised this report doesn't get too much play....there is no motivation to make sure "your guy" wins the election.

[twa]

"reliance on local militias left U.S. diplomats and other personnel vulnerable"

So relying on local armed militia isn't a good form of defense against violent threats?

I just don't know what to believe any more.

LOL

But you see they were untrained and largely unarmed, while the trained and armed militia did pretty well against them

but then they did have the armed ones come in later after it was deemed safe

meanwhile our 'security' never fired a shot?

[JMS]

"reliance on local militias left U.S. diplomats and other personnel vulnerable"

So relying on local armed militia isn't a good form of defense against violent threats?

I just don't know what to believe any more.

#1 The entire reason the consulate was there and open was to support CIA operations.

#2 The CIA was there because of the prevalence of Al Quada, and the lawlessness

#3 They had some sort of "deal" with the local militia which turned out to be unreliable.

#4 No embassy or consulate no matter how secure could have withstood the kind of assault that took down the Benghazi Consulate.

So basically there was inherent risk associated with the operation. My question is #1 why was the US ambassador even there, and how did AQ know he was there?

[Corcaigh]

That goes along with what I am saying about Benghazi falling somewhere between a warzone and a standard diplomatic mission.

Agreed. Given the situation on the ground, I question why the staffing was what it was at all, not how well the response to a large scale attack was handled. What was the ambassador even doing there? An officer could have acted as a local liaison and had a lot more military support.

[Redskins Diehard]

#1 The entire reason the consulate was there and open was to support CIA operations.

#2 The CIA was there because of the prevalence of Al Quada, and the lawlessness

#3 They had some sort of "deal" with the local militia which turned out to be unreliable.

#4 No embassy or consulate no matter how secure could have withstood the kind of assault that took down the Benghazi Consulate.

So basically there was inherent risk associated with the operation. My question is #1 why was the US ambassador even there, and how did AQ know he was there?

You should let Secretary Clinton know she is wasting her time with the Marines.

[JMS]

You should let Secretary Clinton know she is wasting her time with the Marines.

From a security stand point she already knows she's wasting her time adding more Marine guards.... From a political point of view she's doing what she has too... reacting to politically motivated

criticism, with a politically motivated reaction...

Marines guards are not the guys guarding Embassies or Consulates from outside threats. Their primary function is information security officers.. They guard the equipment and conduct security audits.

That is their primary job at Embassies and Consulates today... Thus for instance when the Iranian Embassy in Tehran was stormed by an unarmed Mob in 1979, the Marine Guards were not much help.

They became hostages just like the civilian personnel did for 444 days until they were released..

Likewise even with "real" Marine guards detached for physical security, and nearly 600,000 US military personnel in country... The US Embassy in Vietnam was penetrated by 10 sappers during the Tet Offensive in 1968.. At the time that

was one of the most heavily protected embassies in the world. How anybody could therefore think a consulate in Benghazi could or would ever be fortified significantly enough to protect against 125 and 150

gunmen who reportedly attacked it is beyond credulity.

The simple facts are there is no embassy much less consulate in the world which could protect itself from such an onslaught... Not in Washington DC, or any nation in Europe, certainly not in Libya.

The Consulate by definition was vulnerable... The lack of Libyan infrastructure to protect it made it worse.. But hey, the entire reason the CIA was there, ( who were the primary users of the consulate)

was because of the Instability and the proximity to Al Quada.

[Thiebear]

I've turned around 100%

I've been screaming that The State Dept did not support the embassies in Lybia. That Hillary MUST be fired!. That we let our people down that trust us to protect them.

My new position: Based on International press and Canadian reporting: US reporters suck at this.

Everyone involved was a spy. Both the consulate and the CIA annex were there exclusively for CIA "operations". (ambassadorship was a front)

That the State Department probably had no say in most of what was going on and that there was a "memo" wall between the CIA/State Dept.

The CIA / State Dept lack of communication screwed everyone.

Follow up: Administration: Getting reports about the CIA / State Dept commingling that creating breaches in communication is another obvious example.

You don't backup Spy's immediately when they are performing nefarious activities that may help our future against bad people. And they don't get medals for saving other spies.

I'm sure it will adapt again later and if we get lucky its all wrong and those two guys get a medal for kicking ass.

They fought their way into the one gate with 150 people around.

They gathered them up in a couple of rooms while they were on fire!!!!!!!

They held ground a few minutes and then gave it up as impossible running back to the cars (even with a body).

They drove to the annex with 3 captives they gave to the Feb17th guard and losing their lives.

BAD-ASS!! is the only explanation even if you remove the 3 captives.. though the denial says they didnt "hold" the captives")

While i agree the removing of security killed those people. I disagree it was the State Dept's fault: Its the CIA's fault and the fact they don't comingle well.

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/20/us-usa-benghazi-idUSBRE8BI1G420121220

State Department security chief leaves post over Benghazi

The U.S. State Department said on Wednesday its security chief had resigned from his post and three other officials had been relieved of their duties following a scathing official inquiry into the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Eric Boswell has resigned effective immediately as assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a terse statement. A second official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Boswell had not left the department entirely and remained a career official.

Nuland said that Boswell, and the three other officials, had all been put on administrative leave "pending further action."

[Thiebear]

He took the blame up until it was time to take the blame.

“There was just some sloppiness — not intentional — in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies,” Obama said Dec. 30, during a high-profile, low-pressure interview with David Gregory, the host of the NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

Obama then presented himself as fixing his deputies’ management errors

This Sunday quick response, and then the WH briefing room refering everyone to this interview will effectively end it.