In Requests for Security in Libya, Focus Was on Tripoli
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK LANDLER
October 12, 2012
This is an interesting article. the WH may not have known about the request to extend the stay of security forces beyond August, possibility. The idea that the State Department has to repay the Pentagon for the use of these soldiers, are they for hire ? It sounds a little screwy to me.I think that the State Department is owed more security for our embassies, and the thought of relying on the countries our embassies are in for protection bothers me, because that means trusting those we may not know who they are. Read this article and tell me if I am crazy, reading it wrong, or reading to much into it.
Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters
The American mission in
Benghazi, Libya, was seen in flames on Sept. 11 during a protest by an
armed group said at the time to have been protesting a film produced in
the United States.
WASHINGTON — In the weeks leading up to the attack last month on the
American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens
and three other Americans, diplomats on the ground sounded increasingly
urgent alarms.
- In a stream of diplomatic cables, embassy security officers warned their superiors at the State Department of a worsening threat from Islamic extremists, and requested that the teams of military personnel and State Department security guards who were already on duty be kept in service.
- The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away.
- And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
The handling of these requests has now been caught up in a sharply
partisan debate over whether the Obama administration underestimated the
terrorist threat in Libya. In a debate with Representative Paul D. Ryan
on Thursday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said White House
officials were not told about requests for any additional security.
“We weren’t told they wanted more security again,” Mr. Biden said.
The Romney campaign on Friday pounced on the conflicting statements,
accusing Mr. Biden of continuing to deny the nature of the attack. The
White House scrambled to explain the apparent contradiction between Mr.
Biden’s statement and the testimony from State Department officials at
the House hearing.
The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said Friday that security issues
related to diplomatic posts in Libya and other countries were dealt with
at the State Department, not the White House. Based on interviews with
administration officials, as well as in diplomatic cables, and
Congressional testimony, those security decisions appear to have been
made largely by midlevel State Department security officials, and did
not involve Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her top aides.
While it is unclear what impact a handful of highly trained additional
guards might have had in Benghazi were they able to deploy there, some
State Department officials said it would probably not have made any
difference in blunting the Sept. 11 assault from several dozen heavily
armed militants.
“An attack of that kind of lethality, we’re never going to have enough guns,” Patrick F. Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, said at Wednesday’s hearing. “We are not an armed camp ready to fight it out.”
A senior administration official said that the military team, which was
authorized by a directive from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, was
never intended to have an open-ended or Libya-wide mission.
“This was not a SWAT team with a DC-3 on alert to jet them off to other
cities in Libya to respond to security issues,” said the official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the
matter.
Security in Benghazi had been a growing concern for American diplomats
this year.
- In April, the convoy of the United Nations special envoy for Libya was attacked there.
- In early June, a two-vehicle convoy carrying the British ambassador came under attack by rocket-propelled grenades.
- Militants struck the American mission with a homemade bomb, but no one was hurt. In late June, the Red Cross was attacked and the organization pulled out.
“We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi,”
Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, who was deployed in
Tripoli as the leader of the American military security unit, told the
House committee.
But friends and colleagues of Ambassador Stevens said he was adamant
about maintaining an American presence in Benghazi, the heart of the
opposition to the Qaddafi government.
“Our people can’t live in bunkers and do their jobs,” Mrs. Clinton said Friday. “But it is our solemn responsibility to constantly improve, to reduce the risks our people face and make sure they have the resources they need to do their jobs.”
At American diplomatic facilities overseas, the host nation is primarily
responsible for providing security outside the compound’s walls.
Inside
the compound, the State Department is in charge, relying on a mix of
diplomatic security officers, local contract guards and Marines.
The
Marines are responsible for guarding classified documents, which they
are instructed to destroy if there is a breach of the compound. Senior
diplomats are protected by diplomatic security officers, not a
detachment of Marines, as Mr. Ryan asserted in Thursday night’s debate.
In deciding whether to extend a military security team,
- The State Department often faces a difficult financial decision at a time when its security budget is under severe pressure.
- The department must reimburse the Pentagon for the cost of these soldiers, an expense that can quickly run into the millions of dollars.
- For that reason, the State Department typically pushes to make the transition to local contractors, who are much cheaper.
In their debate, Mr. Biden responded to Mr. Ryan’s attacks by accusing
him and his fellow Republicans of cutting the administration’s request
for embassy security and construction. House Republicans this year voted
to cut back the administration’s request, but still approved more than
was spent last year.
In an agreement between the Pentagon and the State Department, the
military team was extended twice — December 2011 and March 2012 — but
when it came to a third extension, Eric A. Nordstrom, the former chief
security officer in Libya, said he was told he could not request another
extension beyond August.
- Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, said at the hearing that a request from Mr. Nordstrom to extend the military team was only a recommendation and that the State Department had been right not to heed it.
- Ms. Lamb also testified that budget considerations played no part in considering additional security. Decisions on diplomatic security went no higher than Ms. Lamb and, in limited cases, Mr. Kennedy, officials said.
- The broader strategy, Ms. Lamb said, was to phase out the American military team and rely more on the Libyan militiamen who were protecting the compound along with a small number of American security officers.
- Ms. Lamb said this model of relying on locally hired guards had worked at the United States Embassy in Yemen.
In a July 9 cable signed by Ambassador Stevens, the embassy requested
that the State Department extend the tours for a minimum of three
security personnel in Benghazi. The department had earlier approved a
request for five guards for the mission, which was still in effect at
the time of the July 9 cable.
No comments:
Post a Comment