Benghazi Consulate Massacre: US Ambassador asked for Special Forces, State said “no”

Posted by: Phineas on October 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

I know he said it in the context of Operation Fast and Furious, but Congressman Darrell Issa’s description of that fiasco as “felony stupid” applies just as much to this fiasco:

Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team,” said in a pair of interviews that the embassy staff, including slain Amb. Chris Stevens, had wanted his group of 16 special operations soldiers to stay in Libya.

“[The] first choice was for us to stay,” Wood told ABC News. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.”

Wood told CBS News that when he found out his team was being removed in August, he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

“We felt we needed more, not less,” Wood added.

The former security officer said embassy staffers approached him to express concerns about their safety, but said the State Department instructed diplomatic workers “to do with less.”

(Emphasis added)

I can understand that. After all, the security situation in Libya couldn’t be any more volatile than, say, Ottawa or Tokyo, right?

And you have to love State’s “response:”

“The SST was enlisted to support the re-opening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. They were based in Tripoli and operated almost exclusively there. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically,” said the State Department in the statement.

The withdrawal of Special Forces had “no impact whatsoever?” As in “made no difference?” Really?

No impact.

State’s statement also says that LTC Wood was only stationed in Tripoli, implying that his team’s continued presence would have made no difference in Benghazi. Right. They’re trying to tell us that a Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces, if tasked to assess security in another city couldn’t quickly figure out the risks and needs? It just begs the question, why wasn’t Wood told to assess Benghazi, where there was an American consulate in a known al Qaeda recruiting ground?

And let’s not forget: Benghazi was not just a human disaster, but also an intelligence train wreck, too, as important documents and secrets were left unsecured. (And who knows how many lives will be lost as al Qaeda learns who was helping us?) Issa’s House Oversight Committee will be holding hearings on Benghazi this week. Given the number of whistle-blowers apparently eager to talk and high-ranking political appointees desperate to blame anyone but themselves, it should be an interesting day.

RELATED: Cover up? Revolt of the intelligence Professionals.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

4 Responses to “Benghazi Consulate Massacre: US Ambassador asked for Special Forces, State said “no””

Comments

  1. Tango says:

    ….this is just another “bump in the road.” Nothing to see here. Move along! Move along!

  2. Tex says:

    You can bet if a Republican President had been in the White House when this happened the MSM would have made this the number 1 news story day after day after day now demanding to know why the Ambassador was denied adequate protection.

    But then, if a Republican President had been in the White House it never would have happened, because a Republican President never would have left a U.S. Ambassador to a chaotic Islamic nation with known Al Qaeda cells without adequate protection.

  3. In that ABC interview with Wood he states he gave his assessment after traveling to Benghazi. It is not a case where a career military officer made a wild speculation about what was happening on-scene there and it was not a statement cleared with State, as was the party line concerning that apologetic tweet the Cairo embassy put out while being attacked.