By Donald Sassano
In Homeland Security Guest Contributor
David Kirkpatrick’s December 26th New York Times article entitled “Deadly Mix in Benghazi: False Allies, Crude Video” should be required reading at AMU. It manages to be both comprehensive (about 8,000 words) and readable. It is as good an exploration of the dramatis personae and ensuing events one is likely to ever see. I include both the Senate Intelligence Committee’s partisan-tinged review issued January 15th, and the State Department’s own ARB (Accountability Review Board) assessment from December that focused on security and bureaucratic shortcomings. It is decidedly not the product of a liberal cabal serving up a softball to a Clinton candidacy, see here. In other words, it has no current rivals. One wonders why it has not been sourced more widely not only by those kindly disposed to the Obama Administration, but anyone looking for solid narrative based on old fashioned, shoe leather-style reportage.
Here’s the takeaway:
“Months of investigation….turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” It “was led, instead, by fighters who hadbenefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam”. In fact “the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist groups like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network.” (Emphasis mine)
The Benghazi debate, of which Kirkpatrick’s article is a much needed restorative, has unfortunately been about political hair splitting and blame assessment, especially by grasping conservatives who want to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton by any means possible. Moreover, a sloppy media has pursued the story without a previously forged strong definitional framework.
The truth of the matter is that whether the Benghazi murders were perpetrated by Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia (loosely defined as a Libyan Al Qaeda-like group), or an amorphous mob spurred on because of an offensive video posted on YouTube, the result was terrorism. Period. Perhaps this is what then Secretary of State Clinton was getting at during her testimony before Congress. Cheap politics aside, why do conservatives have such difficulty accepting this?
Paul Pillar literally wrote the book on terrorism and U.S. foreign policy. In his view previous definitions of terrorism erred, and often morphed into “catch-all pejoratives”. In contrast and in accordance with his more exacting analysis and narrower focus, terrorism has four primary features: premeditation, political motivation, and the targeting of non-combatants by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
Again, the key point is that whether or not the September 11, 2012 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, gangs mimicking previous Egyptian video protests, or ad hoc groups derived from all of the above, the Benghazi attack fulfills Pillar’s definition.
First, the attack was premeditated. Plotting by locals had been ongoing and forms a large part of Kirkpatrick’s narrative.
Next, the attack was politically motivated. Whether in reaction to American military force in Libya or distaste for interventionist U.S. policy in the Muslim world, politics played a decisive role.
The Americans that died were non-combatants. Every diplomat is, by definition, a non-combatant, and the others did not wear the uniforms of the U.S. military.
Finally, whatever their affiliations, the mob that attacked the consulate comprised subnational groups, i.e. not working for or sanctioned by the Libyan government.
But while Kirkpatrick should be congratulated for an extraordinary effort that gets both the facts and narrative right, the national media coverage surrounding Benghazi and its aftermath continues to trivialize its import. Instead, responsible analysis should now focus on whether Benghazi was another textbook example of the crisis that has enveloped U.S. liberal interventionism.
Wouldn’t we be better off debating whether to adopt a more realist foreign policy playbook and avoid ad hoc nation building? Rather than engage in Libyan-style humanitarian intervention in a roiling Middle East, I continue to espouse the view that we could better serve American global interests and ultimately save more lives by not giving into to the temptation to politically reshape the regional landscape. Sadly, what Benghazi once again has shown is that “winning friends and influencing people” (aka as “picking winners”) amidst brutal civil wars and within ancient cultures we in all honesty know little about – Iraq, Libya, Egypt – is a low probability bet. And as the suckers at the casino find out sooner or later, the house always has the advantage.
About the Author
Donald Sassano is a businessman with strong interests in Middle Eastern politics, U.S. Grand Strategy, and political theory. He completed his Master’s Degree in International Relations and Conflict Resolution with a concentration in Comparative and Security Issues at American Military University in 2013.
When he’s not reading and writing about foreign affairs, he works at commercial real estate to the extent necessary to keep a roof over his head. He resides with his wife Denise near Lake Erie in Rocky River, Ohio.
Comments are closed.