| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| 'Stand down': CIA Benghazi team clash led to controversial order |
| 2013-12-15 |
| CIA officers revealed a clash over how quickly they should go help the besieged U.S. ambassador during the 2012 attack on an outpost in Libya, and a standing order for them to avoid violent encounters, according to a congressman and others who heard their private congressional testimony or were briefed on it. The senior CIA officers in charge in Libya that day told Congress of a chaotic scramble to aid Stevens and others who were in the outpost when it was attacked by militants on the 11th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Those CIA leaders decided they and their security contractor team should wait before rushing from their annex into the violence roughly a mile away. They said they were trying to first gather intelligence and round up Libyan militia allies armed with heavy weapons, according to the testimony by the CIA officers in charge. Some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, who heads a House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the employees, said he believes this disagreement was the source of allegations that the CIA ordered security personnel to "stand down" and not help the people inside the diplomatic mission, and perhaps was the source of accusations the administration failed to answer a call from the CIA security team for combat aircraft. "The team leader knew he was on his own," said Westmoreland, R-Ga. He explained that the lack of air support was clear to all CIA employees working in Libya because of a 2011 CIA memorandum sent to employees after NATO forces ended their mission in support of the Libyan revolution. "It basically told people in Benghazi ... if you are attacked, you get your 'package' (the personnel they are charged with protecting) and you get out," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. A senior intelligence official confirmed that the CIA officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the diplomats' call for help by trying "to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons." When it became "clear that this additional support could not be rapidly obtained," the team moved toward the diplomatic compound. Really? the local support? Huh? Duh? And you got a Ranger yelling in your ear piece to move? One contractor testified that he shouted repeatedly over the agency's radio system to his CIA security boss that they should request combat aircraft. But the security chief explained to lawmakers that he ignored his subordinate's demands because he said he knew that no combat aircraft were available for such a mission, Westmoreland said. A haunting report/interview I remember (it has stayed with me)from the beginning of the Benghazi reporting was a report from Catherine Herridge of Fox News reporting on a "stand down" order being issued during Bret Baier's Special Report. Bret answered with, "This is strong. You got good sources 'cause you could get creamed on this?" Catherine answered with "On the ground." Bred repeated, "On the ground." I've often wondered about her "on the ground" source. Westmoreland said the CIA security contractors loaded into two vehicles, with weapons ready, the moment they heard the radio call for help from the diplomatic building. Some wanted to rush to the U.S. compound roughly a mile away, and their agitation grew as they heard increasing panic when the diplomats reported the militants were setting the compound on fire. The CIA team leader and the CIA chief at the Benghazi annex told committee members that they were trying to gather Libyan allies and intelligence before racing into the fray, worried that they might be sending their security team into an ambush with little or no backup. CYA? At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to "wait" at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees. Makes me also remember the testimony of Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, head of a team of 16 security guys (read EX military) that was removed against his force-able request to stay, before the House when asked, "If your team would have been there, could you have made a difference?" The look on his face as he responded told the story, "I wish we had been there." View his opening statement to Congress here According to previous accounts by U.S. officials, the attacks began at approximately 9:40 p.m., and the CIA team arrived roughly 25 minutes into the attack. None of those who testified would say they believed the ambassador or the others could have been saved had they arrived any faster, according to two officials, who also were briefed on the testimony. When the seven CIA employees reached the diplomatic compound, they fought their way in and found the five State Department security personnel who had taken shelter in various parts of the compound. They found computer specialist Smith, dead from smoke inhalation, but couldn't find Stevens and decided to fall back to the CIA annex, because the crowd was building outside again, Westmoreland and the other officials said. Stevens was found in a safe room and taken by Libyan civilians to a nearby hospital, but he died from smoke inhalation. The CIA team believes their convoy was followed back to their compound, where they were first attacked by small arms fire around midnight local time, which quickly stopped when the CIA team returned fire, Westmoreland said. One of the only believable parts Roughly five hours later, the CIA team testified that mortars hit, killing former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who had helped rescue the diplomats, and former SEAL Glenn Doherty, who had just arrived with a team from Tripoli. The lawmakers wanted to hear directly from the contractors about their account before a book the contractors have written is published in September 2014, if it passes the CIA's security review. Thinkn' the contractors have the "real story." |
| Posted by:Sherry |