Something in one of the Burg's articles yesterday struck me as 'funny':Benghazi was the cradle of the [Libyan] uprising two years ago, and attacks there are generally blamed on radical Islamists who have also targeted Western interests. Last September 11, U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack on Washington's consulate in Benghazi.
That's a curiously interesting remark, aside from it being standard Western media boilerplate, when taken in the case of the Benghazi attack on the US consulate. Western interests have been targeted in Benghazi; both the International Red Cross and British embassy assets had been attacked prior to the assault on the consulate and its annex. But the attack on the U.S. consulate and later its annex is different.
It's possible that Islamists intended to attack the US consulate on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and things just deteriorated. Given the follow on developments of the consulate being scouted the day of the attack, the timing of the attack, the inaction of the Transitional National Government (TNG) and its assets in Benghazi, the obstruction by TNG during the attack, the and the overall after-actions taken by the US government and its agencies, it does seem rather unlikely it was just a "9-11 event".
Here are some other, more likely suppositions. Some of these may sound basic to the reader, but they lay the foundation for later discussion:
1. Given the developments that the CIA had a sizable presence in Benghazi (reportedly up to 35 agents,) it's possible that there was a faction or factions unhappy with such a sizable US intelligence presence in the Benghazi region and wanted to 'blind' it by destroying its infrastructure.
2. If the US had an active program in place to thwart the shipment of weapons, or of certain weaponry such as MANPADS, to Syria, the attack may be due to a faction's or faction's displeasure at the US attempt and the attack was intended to remove or cripple the US program in Benghazi.
3. If the US was shipping or facilitating the shipment of weapons to Syria and then stopped shipping them for any number of reasons, the attack may have been due to a faction's or factions' displeasure at those US-sponsored shipments being stopped,
4. If the US was shipping or facilitating the shipment of weapons and then stopped shipping certain types of weapons (such as MANPADS,) the attack may have been due to a faction's or factions' displeasure at those US-sponsored shipments being stopped,
5. If the US was shipping or facilitating shipment of weapons to Syria, then there were some other factions displeased at the US-sponsored shipments occurring in the first place and those factions took action to destroy the infrastructure involved in shipping those weapons.
Now as to a faction or factions: Some of these were discussed back in late 2012 at the Burg, some are discussed in the media and by certain interests elsewhere in the blogosphere.
If we go with the objection-to-US-intel-presence, that makes for a fairly sizable list. AQiM and its aligned militias, Al Shabab, the Algerian GIA, Hamas, Iran, the Egyptian MB, and organized crime. There may be others, but these are the most likely.
If we go with suppositions involving displeasure over the US stopping of the flow of of all or some weapons, that still leaves AQiM and its aligned militias, plus Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, the Egyptian MB, the Egyptian government and its military, the UAE, Saudi Arabia or members of the House of Saud, or organized crime, plus any aligned parties of any of these potential actors. It still makes for a long list.
If we go with the faction wanting to stop the arms shipments theory, that means looking at Syria and/or the pro-Syrian factions. Syria itself makes obvious sense. The Israelis are pointing to the Iranians or an Iranian/Hesb'allah axis. That seems to be a quite popular idea. Curiously left out of the discussions is a third pro-Syrian faction.
I'll leave the reader to ponder this: The US had an emplaced ambassador who had been in Libya in contact with Libyan rebels during their uprising. The same ambassador had established early connections to the Libya's Transitional National Government, including a US facility. The ambassador was still on friendly terms with some of the Libyan militias in Benghazi, to the point where one militia was involved in providing some measure of security for the consulate.
If there were US-sponsored shipments of weapons to Syria using the US' Benghazi-based consulate and annex, would radical Islamists in Benghazi (with many of their compatriots fighting the Syrian government), attack the consulate and its annex because it was a "Western interest"?
Tomorrow: Is there a cover-up?