The September Surprise: Blowback from Benghazi threatens Obama’s Lead. [View all]

[leveymg]

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:40 AM - Edit history (15)

Don't underestimate the power the fear of terrorism still has for many Americans. Blowback from Benghazi is not over - if anything, it's now churning around in the psyche of many Americans, gathering strength like a late season Atlantic hurricane.

Since the September 11 attack in Benghazi, a growing number of Americans have begun to question the Obama Administration’s veracity and competence in handling issues in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). More than anything else there is the suspicion of a lack of candor. That is well-founded, but not for the reasons that Fox News and Mitt Romney have been suggesting.

In the immediate aftermath, most of that unease about the attack focused on accusations raised about the apparently inadequate security at the US Mission that night. (On edit, 10/28: Those suspicions have morphed and escalated into accusations that top national security officials, and even the President, were personally involved in decisions to not provide outside aid to Americans on the scene the night of the attack. Questions about that and allegations of White House stonewalling have ignited on Right-wing internet sites, and is seeping into more mainstream media. See, e.g., USA Today, David Jackson, "Obama rebuffs Benghazi questions." http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/27/obama-benghazi-denver-tv-station-libya/1662141/)

(On edit, 10/28: The greatest danger here, as in all things political is not the possible validity of the accusations, but the appearance of a coverup, fed by conflicting accounts by high officials. While it is unclear whether there is any validity to accusations that help was available but intentionally withheld -- which on its face appears both shocking and implausible -- the power of these allegations to mobilize a vast swath of Wingnutters is real. What gives this narrative power, however, is that there is an underlying truth that Administration officials prefer not to discuss. There is a bigger but more complex story lurking under the simplistic RW narrative that neither side in what is becoming a politicized game appears to be able to deal with candidly. So, in the absence of candor public suspicions grow and are spun into political fictions. In reality, as I argue, what is being covered up is simply a policy that was being carried out, the details of which are still classified. We now come to what that is.)

In recent weeks attention has begun to also fix on a wider set of questions about what Ambassador Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi, and now on the Turkish (diplomat) who departed the compound just an hour before the attack commenced. That meeting appears to have been redacted on the copy of the Ambassador's hand-annotated itinerary that was found at the scene by reporters after the attack, posted at The Washington Post. See, http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/sensitive-documents-left-with-little-security-at-us-mission-in-benghazi/35/ The State Department waited nearly a month to reveal the fact that meeting had even occurred.

According to a transcript, on October 9, 2012 the State Department held a telephone conference to brief reporters on what happened in Benghazi, revealing a final meeting Ambassador Stevens had the night of September 11, 2012 shortly before the attack began. See, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

That meeting went virtually unremarked upon until a retired CIA officer, Clare Lopez, published an article in which she (rightly or wrongly) raised questions about whether Ambassador Stevens had actually been meeting with the Turks about organizing and arming Libyan jihadis traveling to Syria.

***

The Benghazi security issue seized upon by some House Republicans turns out to actually be a shiny object, a distraction from the far more dangerous issue of the U.S. policy of “regime change” in MENA. Regardless of the truth of Ms. Lopez's specific charges, both Libya and Syria involve serious, unresolved issues related to the Administration's conduct of covert regime change operations. So does Iran, but that project is less developed. Neither Party seem to be able to publicly address these regime change issues with anything approaching candor or internal consensus, and (it is hardly surprising, therefore, that) both candidates have gone out of their ways to avoid discussing it in any meaningful way.

The death of Chris Stevens forced the overarching issue of whether it was actually wise policy for the US Ambassador to have coordinated the armed opposition in tribal East Libya knowing that the place is swarming with al-Qaeda like groups, and that the region was the epicenter of Sunni suicide bombers who had until recently been going into civil war Iraq to kill Americans and the Shi'ia population there.

Even more pressing, Stevens and the Administration were well aware of the fact that Gadhaffi had tens of thousands of portable anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADs) that would most likely fall into the hands of these same groups when the regime was overthrown. Of course, they did, and about 15,000 MANPADs are now in circulation and landing in Syria, Gaza and on international black markets.

But, here's the kicker. The US and other western countries proceeded with regime change, anyway, some with the expectation that those fighters and weapons would eventually turn against the Syrian regime in the event that the Arab Spring insurrection would turn into a Sunni against Sh'ia religious civil war, which it did. That is exactly what has happened. The problem with that outcome, aside from the tens of thousands of people on both sides who have died in Syria, and the tens of thousands of Libyans who also died killing each other, was these weapons and Holy Warriors armed with SA-7 and SA-24 antiaircraft missiles cannot now be contained – they are the very angry Genie outside the Bottle -- and there is a very high risk they and their uncrated Libyan MANPADs will be coming to the Friendly Skies near you.

***

But, the overarching policy issue of regime change at the cost of arming terrorists and plunging the region into religious war -- and the resulting blowback -- hasn't even begun to be discussed, and the consequences haven't yet been fully realized. We need to start having that conversation, openly, now.

I just wish it wasn't in the middle of an election, and that Mitt Romney and Rep. King -- who are utter hypocrites, and would not mind blood on their hands -- weren't grabbing ahold of these unfolding events to try to score political points.

I think the only way the Obama Administration is going to get out of this mess is with brutal candor.

The White House needs to reveal the unvarnished truth of what Ambassador Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi. If his last meeting with the Turkish Charge d'Affairs the evening of the attack was to try to reign in the Libyan fighters and weapons (particularly MANPADs) flowing to Syria, we need to know exactly what was discussed between 7:30 and 8:30pm along with what was said to the local militia leaders whom Stevens met with in downtown Benghazi at 4pm the previous afternoon.

If, however -- as has been surmised by some ex-CIA officers over the past couple of weeks -- the Ambassador was actually facilitating the continued flow of arms and fighters to Syria, the Administration needs to defend that policy. I rather think a large percentage of the American people will rally around him, even if I personally believe the policy is a terrible mistake.

Either way, a lack of candor may well sink Obama - which is exactly what I want to avoid, because Romney will only blindly escalate things into a regional war. If recent history is any guide, blowback from Benghazi risks turning Mitt Romney into the next wartime President, and America into an even meaner post-9/11 police state.

___________________________
P.S. - Like most of us here, I am also sick of RW spin and slanted polling. But, sometimes we shouldn't ignore the polls and the newspapers, even news we don't welcome. I am not making this up - the Benghazi attack has become a major, perhaps decisive issue, that has significantly undermined Obama's support, particularly among Independents. Here's a Pew Poll from a couple weeks ago that shows an 11 point drop in favorable opinion of the Administration's foreign policy since April. I wish were wrong, but nothing anyone has said in their comments shows me that the facts are otherwise. Look. I'm reporting facts, not making them up. A recent Pew Poll showed an 11 point loss due to public unease with spreading conflict in MENA and the attack. The American voters quite desperately want peace in the Middle East, and fear that is not what is to come.


http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/262867-poll-independent-voters-fault-obamas-handling-of-libya-attack

The Hill:
Romney all but erases Obama's polling lead on foreign policy
By Julian Pecquet - 10/18/12 05:47 PM ET

Mitt Romney has all but erased President Obama’s lead on foreign policy issues in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, according to a Pew poll released Thursday.

Obama’s lead on foreign policy has plummeted by 11 points since the outbreak of violence in the Middle East that culminated with the death of four Americans in Libya on Sept. 11, according to Pew.

The president holds a slim 47 percent to 43 percent edge over his GOP rival on the issue of who would do a better job on foreign policy, down from a 15-point advantage in September.

The poll of 1,511 adults was conducted two weeks ago, and found that many Americans have soured on the situation in the Middle East: only 25 percent see a positive future for the region, down from 42 percent in April.

The change in mood is likely a result of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans last month.

A separate Pew poll taken last week, also released Thursday, found that a large chunk of independent voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Libya situation, possibly helping Romney with a bloc of voters that could decide the election.