• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Damning Indictment of State Department Security in Benghazi

    Last Friday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released 120 pages of documents on the situation in Benghazi, Libya, from March 2011 to September 2012. In light of these documents, the denial of additional U.S. security personnel in Libya is shocking. The documents provide plenty of new material for tonight’s presidential debate.

    Emails describe concerns over unstable security; weekly Benghazi reports detail growing violence; and specific requests for more temporary duty (TDY) security personnel from Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom and Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself show that they were keenly aware of the danger.

    A final report from Ambassador Stevens on concerns over violence was sent on the fateful day of September 11, hours before armed terrorists attacked the embassy and killed the ambassador and three members of his small security staff.

    First is an Action Memo addressed to Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy sent in December 2011 requesting an extended presence in Benghazi through the 2012 calendar year. Of the two recommendations given was that Kennedy approve “a combined footprint of 35 U.S government personnel in Benghazi, including eight State Department and USAID and two TDY beds.”

    Both recommendations were signed in the affirmative. Background information, however, states that, due to budget constraints, Diplomatic Security’s (DS) permanent presence was reduced to five, down from 17.

    According to a thread of emails from Nordstrom to various State Department personnel, as early as February of 2012 there were concerns regarding the lack of security resources in Benghazi. Nordstrom went on to say that because there were only 2 DS agents supplied on the ground, it “severely limits operations in Benghazi” and the problem couldn’t be rectified because he had “been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

    More documents revealed:

    • A March 2011 report titled “Progress Elusive in Libya” laid out mounting concerns over the construction of the “New Libya” in the wake of the country’s liberation from General Muammar Qadhafi. The State Department’s Research and Information Support Center reported that there was continued instability and a failure to centralize authority and incorporate militias under the control of the Transitional National Council. It also said that reports indicated that al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan had sent “‘experienced jihadists’ to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country.”
    • In a 12-page Overseas Security Advisory Council Crime and Safety report on February 1, 2012, Nordstrom gave a detailed account of “overall crime and safety,” “regional terrorism and organized crime,” “civil unrest,” the local police situation, and more. The overarching theme of the report was negative, as he stated that “following a change of regime and government, the political situation in Libya remains fragile” and “crime levels in Tripoli have significantly increased with the fall of the Qadhafi regime as local militias are demobilized and there remains an absence of effective security and police structures.”
    • On June 25, 2012, the State Department received a lengthy report titled “Libya’s Fragile Security Deteriorates as Tribal Rivalries, Power Plays and Extremism Intensify.” The report was signed by Ambassador Stevens. “From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, an IED at the mission in Benghazi, an rocket-propelled grenade fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.
    • On July 9, Ambassador Stevens requested additional security staff—a minimum of 13 TDY security personnel. “Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent classes in Tripoli and other major urban centers,” he wrote.

    Tragically, on September 11, the weekly Tripoli embassy report—signed by Ambassador Stevens—also detailed growing violence. It concluded with testimony from a very frustrated commander of Libya’s Supreme Security Council, who detailed fears of potential strikes by ex-regime supporters. He also complained about the state of security and police forces in Benghazi “who were too weak to keep the country secure.”

    And yet on September 14, White House Spokesman Jay Carney denied that the Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” Now, the incriminating record speaks for itself.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to A Damning Indictment of State Department Security in Benghazi

    1. Ohio Joe says:

      While watching the debate last night I was disappointed that the subject of Benghazi did not come up.
      But I now think Romney did the right thing by practicing restraint.
      Anyone who is interested in what happened there already knows the truth and nothing would have been gained by rubbing Obama’s nose in it… except maybe a feeling of satisfaction at watching him squirm.
      It would not have been presidential.

    2. FmrUSMCRnTX says:

      Thank you Ms. Dale, this whole episode is truly a damning indictment of this administration's incompetence and ongoing cover-up of the TERRORIST attacks & murders in Benghazi! And, regardless of what this administration & it's head continues to say through the media, they HAD to know IMMEDIATELY what happened. A US drone aircraft was over the site of the attack as it took place and collected an hour's worth of film of the attack. Further, The CIA Station Chief in Libya sent a "Flash" communication within 24 hours of the attack saying that it was NOT spontaneous but a carefully planned and orchestrated deliberate TERRORIST attack by militants with associations to Al-Qaeda! Yet this administration continually LIED and blamed a YouTube video for what they claimed to be a "spontaneous demonstration". What the hell, we know better. :( Part 1 of 2; 2nd to follow.

    3. Jeanne Stotler says:

      Taking air time to listen to the POTUS lie more about Libya would have accomplished nothing. What happened in Libya was the fault of the President, that is unless they have changed the history books while I was not looking. Cabinet members are appointed to serve at the President’s pleasure, meaning “they answer to him”. This is why they have DAILY meetings, or are suppose to, For Obama or Clinton to say they were not aware of the problem sure means they WERE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS. It was Clinton’s duty to know and hers to relay this to the WH, in a perfect world, she could be charged with a crime and anyone in the State Dept, could be as well if they did not forward this to Clinton. This s a BIG coverup, BHO was hoping to let this slide until he got re-elected, he plays a political game, he likes his playground and his continuous “Spring Break”

    4. Kanwi says:

      Benghazi was called a Consulate yet it offered no Consular services of any type and was not scheduled to do so. So what was it's real purpose if not a 'Fast & Furious' type cover to ship guns to the resistance in Syria (read Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood here). …Kanwi

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×