I think you're failing to take into account the many warnings and request from Amb Stevens about the situation in Benghazi. IIRC, Amb Stevens called an emergency meeting and made an urgent request in August citing 10 AQ affiliated groups training in the area, this just weeks before the attack. The result of that request? Security was afterwards downgraded from what I've read/heard.
Yes, I do understand there were requests to improve security in Libya. What neither of us have, however, is the broader context of such requests. In most organizations, it's quite common for leaders to seek resources to help their operations. Unfortunately, resources are finite. There's a constant battle find a balance between "I need ..." and "We can only afford ..." So with that in mind, was Stevens the only ambassador pushing for more money for "his" domain, or are such requests common?
If such requests are common, was there something that made Stevens' requests obviously higher priority than those of our other ambassadors? That's a complex question because it requires weighing what we'd already spent in Libya, proportionate to the great risk there, compared to what we've spent in other countries with their relative levels of risk. Those are questions neither of us can answer, nor can the partisan hacks screeching as fact that we "ignored" Stevens' pleas. The real world is rarely quite so simplistic.
I do understand two key points. First, we did significantly upgrade security in Benghazi. Tragically, it still wasn't enough to defeat such an "unprecedented" attack. Second, the 16-man security team that drew so much attention because we didn't extend their tour in Libya, were NOT stationed in Benghazi. They were stationed in Tripoli. Regardless of the overall wisdom of rotating that team out, they would not have prevented this tragedy in Benghazi.
Please note I'm not saying those are the only requests from Libya for more security. Those are simply the two I'm aware of. Presumably the investigation will review all such requests and the responses to them.
Re: your statement about turning every facility in a dangerous country into a fortress - the better question is why locate a State Dept facility in such a place? It has been reported that Amb Steven was meeting with a Turkish official, why couldn't that have been done in Tripoli? And, IMO, we shouldn't be stationing State Dept officials in places where we cannot protect them.
I see no reason for a "facility" in Benghazi. The young Libyan govt is said to have no real presence there, so 'official business' between us would be conducted in Tripoli. I highly doubt there are any US citizens living, vacationing or doing legitimate business there (servicing 'local' US citizens is typically the purpose of such outposts). So, I think another good question is what was the purpose of the Benghazi facility?
Yes! I agree those are great questions. I don't have the expertise to understand how and why we decide to place facilities around the world. Presumably, given the significant cost, somebody decided the Benghazi facility was necessary. Nonetheless, I would also like to understand the rationale behind it, especially given the obvious danger.
Of course in that same vein, why did Stevens travel to Benghazi if he was so concerned about the security there? Why didn't he have the meetings in Tripoli instead, where he would be safer? All reports suggest Stevens was extremely dedicated to his job. Perhaps he was simply so selfless that he chose to take the risk anyway. If so, we're back the the questions above. Why did we put him in a situation where he needed to make that choice?
Or, was Stevens comfortable that security in Benghazi was adequate given the nature of the facility, perhaps assuming that any violence would be aimed at more high profile facilities like the embassy in Libya? I doubt we'll ever get those answers, but someone in State had better get them, and should adjust our policies accordingly.
Again, the point is I don't have the expertise to make those assessments, and neither do the partisans blindly bashing the Obama administration. The questions are absolutely valid. The presumption that certain blowhard hacks know the answers is ludicrous.
Given what occurred, that isn't even a question. It is a fact, and a forseeable occurrence given the plethora of warnings.
Fern
I disagree. We had over 30,000 auto fatalities in the U.S. last year. Does that mean we don't have "proper" highways and automobiles? How many people die in hospitals each year? Does that show we don't have proper hospitals? A number of people die falling in their showers and tubs. Does that mean we don't have proper bathing facilities?
The simple fact is that the world is a dangerous place. Sometimes, in spite of taking reasonable, cost-effective measures to prevent it, bad stuff happens. It doesn't mean we don't have proper safety or security measures. It just means we cannot reasonably anticipate and prevent every single thing that goes wrong in the world. Yes, with 20/20 hindsight, we could have prevented the Benghazi deaths, just as with perfect foresight we can prevent any specific traffic or shower accident. But we cannot wrap the world in a cocoon to prevent every unnecessary death. We have to make choices, strike a balance, allocate limited resources.
So, the question remains, did we have reason to know security in Benghazi was not proper, given competition for limited resources and that the attack was "unprecedented" in its intensity and duration? Did we have the foresight to know this would happen, or did we simply know the Benghazi was one of hundreds of our facilities around the world that faced threats due to terrorists? I agree the
question is valid. I do not accept the purely partisan presumption that Fox and its ilk know the answer.
