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"?
#1
If a last minute decision was made to make inert a large shipment of MANPADS, how many technicians along with a security element, might it take to do complete the task overnight or in a day or two. ? Twenty, possibly thirty ?
What high ranking US official might be held responsible for notifying the logistical leg that the shipment had been cancelled ?
The requested URL /Self was not found on this server.
The link's dead.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/05/2013 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pappy wrote it. It's a Burg original.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/05/2013 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If somebody was giving me goodies and then stopped, I don't think the first thing I would do is attack my benefactor! First would come the complaining, then the threats, right?
Even if it was too secret to let out. heck, that's one of the threats - I'll spill the beans unless you resume shipments.
Or is that too logical for some of the groups under discussion?
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/05/2013 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
But I like the outline of possibilities and look forward to tomorrow! That's what I like about the 'Burg - a thinking man's person's blog.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/05/2013 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is a movie production opportunity if I have ever seen one. "The Actors" yes, blockbuster hit I'd bet. Hillary will have her part to play. Something like a Rasputin sort, perhaps a sexless Lady De Winter.
From TFA:
For some time, the power-struggles of the listed nations have been largely characterized as civil wars among various Muslim factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood. But civil wars are confined within national boundaries. Once the boundary lines have bled into one another, as is presently the case with Syria, the wars become a generalized struggle, with various factions joining with the likeminded of surrounding nations. As World Wars I and II demonstrated, when war escapes national boundaries or aggressive entities invade other national boundaries, nations with a vested interest in maintaining or extending their power bases begin to team up with one another according to ideological empathies. The fighting then spreads as more and more nations get sucked into a black hole of conflict.
#6
I'm not sure closing an embassy is such a sign of weekness. I'd be tempted to permenantly close a few of the embassies in the middle east. What do we have to say that can't be said to their ambassador in Washington? Certainly shouldn't be giving out Visa's to some of these countries and we should be telling Americans travelling their they are on their own.
#7
Welcome to "Globalism" + OWG "Co-Superpowers", where the USA must PDeniably unilaterally give China roughly 1/2 of the Pacific, + a Global Islamic Nuclear Superpower {Shia? Sunni? centric] must dominate the ME + Muslim World.
The Hard Boyz are militarily or violently fighting, among other, for nonb-traditional, extra-Islamic areas of influence - CHINA HASN"T DITTO EVEN STARTED YET VEE JAPAN, ETAL. IN EAST-SOUTH ASIA + WESTPAC, BUT ITS COMING.
THe Clock is ticking ... Its NOT going to matter iff the US has the world's most pwerful military iff the Bammer or other anti-US Marxist-Anarchist-Globalists CAN'T OR WON'T USE IT IN DEFENSE OF US INTERESTS + OVERSEAS ALLIES.
Short version: Since Obama is switching from a military response to a lawfare response, why not declare the war against Al Qaeda over.
Because in President Obama's wars, the enemy doesn't have a vote. As always, The Smartest Man In The Room.
...President Obama recognized the problem in his May 23 speech at the National Defense University. He warned that "a perpetual war . . . will prove self-defeating, and alter [the United States] in troubling ways." Quoting James Madison, Obama warned: " 'No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.' "... The Obama administration should rethink its overly elastic definition of war on al-Qaeda and call an end to it. Roth also said in conclusion:
Those are the standards for policing, not war. So why not take the next logical step and declare the war against al-Qaeda over? Yes, there may be a price to pay. Obama's political opponents will holler and score points after the next, inevitable terrorist attack. But the cost of using war rhetoric to shunt aside appropriate limits on lethal force is even higher. Plenty of governments are eager for excuses to summarily kill their enemies, however tenuously defined -- even those living in the United States. The U.S. government has also committed abuses in the name of fighting terrorism. The Obama administration should rethink its overly elastic definition of war on al-Qaeda and call an end to it. Yeah, I remember scoring points that day four of our people were brutally murdered in Benghazi in a f*ck up that Obama still won't own up to nine months on. I think it was a three pointer, but it may have been a safety, for two points.
Only the left scores political points on dead bodies. Whether they make them dead or not. Ken Roth has been the exec director of Human Rights Watch since 1993 and before that was the deputy exec director of HRW
Who better to know what he's talking about?
Posted by: lord garth ||
08/05/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah its over... over there, and over there too, and even over there (pointing to multiple embassies, insurgencies, and other AlQ/Muslim hot spots on the map).
#7
Here you go RJ, something the MSM has spent a decade trying to shove down the Memory Hole(c) -
S.J.RES.23 -- Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
--S.J.Res.23--
S.J.Res.23
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Congress can repeal this to end the process. Did that when the Senate rejected the Versailles Treaty to end the state of war (WWI) with Germany et al.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Something in one of the Burg's 
