|
Benghazi - What's currently going on, and a Conclusion
The Libyan Transitional Government (TNG) had arrested, then released a suspect in the attack, Faraj al Chalabi, an al Qaeda terrorist also linked to the 1994 murder of two German tourists. An unnamed US official said the US government (USG) had evidence that al Chalabi was linked to the Benghazi attack but had not provided that information to the Libyans. A Libyan interior minister official told Reuters that a photograph was taken of the head of the Ansar al-Sharia militia (the same militia that was assisting with providing security to the consulate) at the consulate at the time of the attack, but there was not enough evidence to arrest him: "There were many people there from Ansar al-Shariah, from other brigades and from the general public," said the official. ""Ansar al-Shariah is a factionalised militant group without one home address. There may be several military commanders playing a role in its activities. Just because someone is there doesn't mean they were behind it." Considering Libya's multiple problems in attempting to gain control of the country, plus anecdotal evidence of Interior Ministry complicity (or at the least, inaction), plus the Libyan TNG's overall lack of cooperation and ineffectiveness both during and after the Benghazi attack, it can be assumed that not much will be done on that end. What about at "home"? Five or so House committees are working on the Benghazi incident. Among these are the House Armed Services Committee and the House Oversight Committee. Aside from getting some rather quickly-dismissed (by USG sources) testimony by a couple of State Department officials, the committees have been relatively ineffective. The time window for discovery was greatly reduced due to the election where the political workings of the Beltway pretty much shut down for the season, much like Paris in July. With regard to the Presidential election - there were some concerns about the incident and its sorry aftermath being used in the political arena. It was, but in a peripheral way (and effectively muted by the Obama camp.) In any case, that was all cut short by a civil Mr. Romney, who likely was briefed by the intelligence community about Benghazi. On the positive side, some of the "fog of war" has been lifted and some questions have been answered, if unsatisfactorily, particularly the response or lack of response by US assets within Tripoli. The CIA is in full damage control mode. There are reports of frequent polygraph tests, the wounded and other survivors being given assumed names or moved around to avoid detection. The State Department has been no less intransigent, but they've gone about it more cleverly. Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was indisposed for health reasons for several weeks and unable to appear before committee. When she did appear for testimony, it was essentially a testy and defiant "swan song". Ms Clinton had announced her departure from the position and the punditry was not so much focused on the reason for the testimony as they were on both her replacement and her impending and highly-assured coronation as the 2016 Democratic Party candidate for President. The Pentagon has also been uncooperative in its own way. In early July, when Republican members of both the House and Senate wanted to interview the former commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, Marine Colonel George Bristol, they were told that the officer had retired and the Department of Defense "cannot compel retired members to testify before Congress," which is an odd statement considering that the officer's superior, former AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham, was made available to testify. The Defense Department stated that they made General Ham available because he was not yet "officially retired". However, Colonel Bristol was still on active duty through the end of July, with a transfer to the inactive list on August 1st. There still has been no word whether the colonel has or will be located. In mid-August, the US Department of Justice took time off from its civil-rights investigations to issue a "sealed" set of charges against a "number of suspects". The issuing of those charges was later confirmed (likely in violation of federal law)by President Obama. Among the charged is one Ahmed Abdu Khattala, the head of the Libyan militia Ansar al-Sharia. That militia had been enlisted by the State Department to assist in providing security for the consulate and provide, on an as-needed basis, security for ambassador Stevens. Khatalla, who has been living openly in Benghazi, did not deny that he was at the consulate at the time of the attack, but that that his involvement was confined to helping "direct traffic with other militia leaders". The mainstream media has been reluctant to pursue questioning, having been warned about losing access by doing so. As a result, much of the discussion has centered around the fringes of the media, among the punditry and the blogosphere. Each has offered a myriad of scenarios, pet theories, and "expert" opinion. What can be agreed upon by the most reputable, is that extraterrestrial aliens weren't involved. Probably. Conclusion So what will happen? No one knows. Benghazi is still highly unstable and like a significant portion of Libya, is still not under control of the Libyan government. Egypt, a major player in Benghazi in the past, is in the throes of what appears will be a major and bloody political realignment. That will likely further destabilize the Benghazi region and make it harder for answers to be found or suspects to be arrested there. Disregarded by the agencies and people they wish to talk to, hamstrung by internal politics and distracted by other and equally important matters, the various House committees still slog on. That the mid-term elections are fourteen months away will not help things. Subsequent overseas events such as the Egypt disturbances, Syria's war, the brewing, revived Far East animosities, and the recent campaign to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks have served to push Benghazi even farther into the background. Factor in domestic and domestic-foreign issues such as the NSA kerfuffle, health care, an anemic economy... Well, one gets the idea. What can be assumed is that the War on Terror is being superseded by a new Cold War in yet another iteration of the Great Game. Like the first Cold War, the second came to being as a preference to, and weariness with, a long period of combat and will involve a myriad of fronts and conflicts. Like the first Cold War, the second will prove a boon to academia, various think tanks and experts, and the industries that gear themselves to the new reality. Careers will be made, political offices will be gained. Except for the rare public assassination, lives will end in the shadows and in places one has to look up in an atlas. Benghazi is among the first events of this new Cold War. And Benghazi will likely end up like many of the events of the first Cold War, where we will not know what really happened for decades, long after its participants have passed away. But unlike the first Cold War, there are no clear enemies or allies, and no clear objectives. One cannot even be sure one's own side is "friendly". It may be that we will never know the full story about Benghazi. Posted by: Pappy 2013-08-19 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=374150 |