Responsibility in the Land of Shadow

          Benghazi is much in the news these days. One legislator called the affair the worst cover-up in our nation’s history. This serves to demonstrate a profound ignorance of history.

 

Responsibility vs. Blame

          The Beltway is a land of blame, not a land of responsibility. Responsibility seeks out the decision makers and the facts for what actually transpired, what went wrong, and how to prevent a repeat performance. Blame is simply the intent to wound the political enemy. There are no solutions or progress in the land of blame.

          There are legitimate and important inquiries to be raised in the Benghazi affair. Was there a cover-up? Sure. Washington is filled with them….hundreds of them. Most of these you will never know.

          Could the Benghazi deaths have been prevented? Nope. Double the security….triple the guard…..against an estimated 100 attackers…..now you have 12 dead instead of four dead. Most Embassies have two security pros and a few Marines. They are not designed to withstand multiple assaults. Were requests for more security unheeded. Yes. If they were heeded would it matter?  No, other than someone was competently doing their job. Can we learn from the mistakes made that day and not make them again? Absolutely.

          On a political level, the Benghazi cover-up illustrates an ass-covering protective reaction in the land of blame. Most cover ups and behavior causing those cover ups usually stem from incompetence or selfish opportunism.

          In the land of responsibility, Benghazi illustrates a broken system. A broken system within the State Department, as well as a lack of leadership and accountability shared by all. A broken system within the Administration, who clumsily handed political opponents the building blocks of scandal. Benghazi revealed a failed system within the military, who had no field-able assets to protect the consulate. It illuminated a broken intelligence system, in which most of the “consulate” personnel turned out to be CIA agents. Benghazi pointed out the broken system within Congress, which denied the State Department security funding, and subsequent failure to be accountable for such choices.

 

A Larger Picture

          The Benghazi affair resonates with deep ideological national trends. Government is too large and intrusive. Government does not act in the interest of the People. Government is incompetent and dysfunctional. Popular belief in the perspectives is a major contributor to our national decline. Americans have historically been skeptical of Government intrusion, but until Watergate, over 70% of the People believed that Government was working towards the common good. Currently, only 19% of people believe this.

          This erosion of public trust and belief in the ability and efficacy of Government is underlying the intractable dysfunction we are currently seeing in poublic life. Government has lost social connection and context. Should this crisis of confidence continue, social isolation and factionalism is inevitable.

 

The Legacy of Watergate

          The turning point in breaking public trust was Watergate and Vietnam. A group whose sole purpose was to perform repeated criminal acts was housed in the White House. A President was forced to resign. Twenty nine of his top Administration officials faced criminal charges. It was a traumatic spectacle of regime change.

          The nation has never recovered from the trauma of these events. In many ways, we still run from the pain of Watergate. Watergate created a scandals culture in Washington, a way of settling policy differences by other means. Scandal became a template, a handy tool, a vicious weapon used to destroy the enemy and gain a political edge. Our media and public is now addicted to scandal. Scandals have devolved into acts of reverberant cynicism, largely devoid of underlying corruption.   

          It is important now more than ever for the President to demonstrate active leadership and attempt to restore public trust and faith that Government can work towards the common good. Government is like fire. It can do great good or great harm.

          It is up to the values, vision, integrity, and leadership of the men at the helm to demonstrate responsibility, to hold this Government accountable.  Many people now feel that our system impedes such leaders to participate on the public stage. Many Americans have lost hope.  

          This nation needs responsible leadership and is suffering from a lack thereof. Without vision, the people perish. Restoring public faith that collectively (which is what Government is) we can make things better is crucial to the future of our national prosperity.

          Obama falls short as a leader in many ways. Although he is an affable public speaker, Obama’s cool and detached leadership style is easily interpreted as aloof, uncaring or disconnected. He seems to work towards minimizing political damage rather than step up to accountability and inspiration….rather than aggressively respond to challenges by putting structures, policies and cultures in place to build and safeguard the public trust.

          Contrast Obama’s style to that of JFK. Kennedy hated the idea of invading Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was Eisenhower’s plan, executed by the CIA. After this humiliating rout, Kennedy immediately took responsibility, since he was at the helm. He stated, “Victory has 100 fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”

          Public officials should remember that power corrupts and concentrated power promotes over-reach and abuse. To promote the common good, a disciplined culture of restraint is necessary. Restraint is evidently lacking in Washington’s current culture. Restraint was lacking in the Justice Departments over-reach in their AP News investigation. Restraint was absent in the IRS recent discrimination and over-reach which violated the public trust. Washington’s current climate is a failure of values. Benghazi is a symbolic failure of values.    

 

Reasons for a Cover Up

          Now let’s shift our thinking. Consider why would Obama, knowing immediately that the Benghazi assaults were an Al Qaeda affiliate attack, deny this or point things in another direction? Did he love Muslim “terrorists”? He had Bin Laden shot in the head. He’s proven himself to be no buddy of extremists, regardless of the views of persons drawing a paycheck at Fox News.

          Why would Obama deny an Al Qaeda affiliate attack? Political opponents contend the admission would hurt his re-election chances. He was making the case that Al Qaeda was no longer a national threat, and would be embarrassed by an attack. That’s why he intentionally removed references to the attack.     Factoid-  Al Qaeda Prime, as it’s known in the Company, is no longer a national threat. Four out of five of their top leaders….dead. The other is hiding too deep to be an operational threat, but remains in the cross-hairs if that groundhog sticks his head up to see his shadow. The top 20 senior leaders and innovators….all dead. Al Qaeda Prime are now ghostly images on the internet. What about their affiliates?

          There can be no reason to deny that Al Qaeda Lite (not what the Company calls them), the Dairy King opportunists of political vacuums and sectarian discontent, are very dangerous…if you camp out in their back yard and wave a flag. If you stick your hand in a hornets nest you might get stung. Obama has a strong anti-terrorist record and Al Qaeda affiliates not being dangerous are not a logic for a cover up.

          Was the US Embassy in Libya in Benghazi? Well, kind of. We had some buildings there. US diplomats live in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Benghazi was the dangerous Wild West of that country.

          This Benghazi compound was a “consulate” complex with a bunch of buildings, not a palatial edifice you might see in downtown New York. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi with such light security? A more pertinent question which sheds light on this affair is, “What was really going on in the compound?” Answer- An ongoing CIA operation.

 

The Real Story Behind Benghazi

          After 9/11, we tasked the CIA with assassination of Enemies of the State. The White House determines who is an Enemy of the State.” The CIA then sends killer drones in on covert operations all over the world. Bear in mind, fifteen years ago the President couldn’t tap a phone without a court getting involved. Man, is this slope slippery. You might be cool with such covert unaccountable killing. Bear in mind that these killings are done in your name.

          When you enter the shadow land of “national security”, cover up is the nature of the beast…..thousands of them. Most of these you will never know.  

          So let’s now enter the shadow land of “national security”, which appears to me to be at the heart of this affair. The scenario presented here may be disclosed, or it may not. Either way, it is another potential facet of complexity.  

          An ongoing covert agenda of this Administration is the overthrow of Assad in Syria. The CIA was tasked with this mission. This is reminiscent to the CIA mission during the 1950s and 1960s before the Church Commission.       Benghazi was a marketplace and hotbed for extremist fighters in Libya. Sucky place for an Embassy. Great place to recruit fighters. A great port to ship weapons bound for Syria.

          The Benghazi compound was a CIA operation, recruiting fighters, interrogating bad guys, and shipping Libyan weapons to Syria. This “Embassy” held prisoners who were being interrogated. This attack was an inside job, likely aided by some of the fighters we were recruiting to destabilize Iran and Syria. We hired them as “security” for the Embassy. These guys knew precisely the secret safe house everybody bugged out to. That may have been their target. The attackers released the prisoners, so these may have been their target. Bear in mind that the personnel killed in Benghazi were CIA, other than Stevens and his aides. This was a CIA operation that went south. These operations are still ongoing in the region.

          Why was Ambassador Stevens in this compound at that time? He was secretly brokering an arms deal, meeting with a Turkish diplomat in order to arrange Libyan arms shipments to Turkey bound for Syria. We’ve been shipping weapons and recruiting fighters for years through Gulf State countries, primarily to destabilize Iran. Do you think these chickens might eventually come home to roost?

          So the main reason, in my assessment, for the Presidential cover up was to obfuscate ongoing CIA counterinsurgency practices.  Are these legal? Probably not. Never stopped them before. I have lots of examples. The Company will carry out their mission, until that mission changes.

          Presidents should be willing to take political heat to preserve national security operations and secrets. After Sputnik, Eisenhower took massive political heat since it appeared the Russkies were ‘ahead”. He took the secret that we had satellite launch capability to his grave for the sake of national security.

          In the real world, situations are complex and interdependent. We once waged a Cold War. Now we wage a Shadow War. Things are not as they appear.

          There are many lessons to be drawn from Benghazi to improve our national security. These will be found in the land of responsibility…..or one could remain side-tracked in the land of blame.