Blame where there is none
Rushing to judgment about what happened in Benghazi politicizes and compresses what absolutely needs to be an apolitical and judicious process
I've never been to Benghazi, nor have I stepped foot in a safe house (official or not), so perhaps I'm unqualified to make an observation about the prevailing opinion that the U.S. government could have done a LOT more to safeguard its personnel in Libya.
On the one hand, of course — yes, always — you can put more bodies on the ground. You can add contract security personnel. You can increase the American footprint, both the parts you can see and the parts you can't. Yes, OPSEC and CI — that's operational security and counter-intelligence — can always be enhanced.
But here is what I can't get my mind around. The CIA is deploying virtually every one of its officers with field experience. Its Global Response staff, sort of a pool of unaligned case officers, doesn't have anyone to spare. They're in Iraq, monitoring Iran. They're in Turkey, monitoring Syria. They're in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Afghanistan — and in lots of places that I can guess at but won't say. The State Department's staff of RSOs — Regional Security Officers and DS agents (Diplomatic Security) — is also taxed.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Congress (and the White House) are not in the mood to spend hundreds of millions on additional contract security officers, who, in general, can get in the way of tradecraft as much as they can safeguard it. (Quite a few CIA officers are "dipped" as civilian contract security officers, in fact.) In Libya, the CIA officers and support personnel there are responsible for tracking weapons, tracking dissidents, intercepting communications (government, jihadist, and otherwise), preparing reports, working with locals to develop human intelligence — and, of course, keeping their cover. It may be policy to have secure safe-houses, but following the rule book might be constricting to the point of absurdity. There is no real rule book for situations like these.
The CIA has to trust its chief of station to make the right call. The Agency and the State Department have to work together to make sure that the ambassador is both secure in his person and accessible. They have to be able to move assets around to incorporate the latest intelligence on the threat. A CIA analyst who is familiar with the region says that Ambassador Stevens, while concerned about his personal security, did not want to turn his embassy and consulates into exemplars of American imperialism. He wanted to be accessible. Sometimes, accessibility and counter-intelligence are mutually exclusive. Sometimes they aren't.
Bad things happen in the field. To label them "failures" of intelligence seems to assume that the U.S. government has a lot more resources and a lot more control of the world than they really do.
We may find out that someone in Washington denied our folks in Libya's request for more security, but we may also find out that the State Department's assessment of security was based on a correct assessment of the information it had at the time. None of this provides any comfort for the families of those who died, and it shouldn't. But to simply assume, because things go wrong, that the CIA should have (and could have) done a better job protecting its assets, or that the State Department fell down on the job, is to assume a whole lot of things that we, sitting on our comfortable couches in Washington (er... Los Angeles) simply cannot know at this point.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
By all means, let's ask questions and see what reasonably could have been done to better protect our men and women overseas. But rushing to judgment politicizes and compresses what absolutely needs to be an apolitical and judicious process.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Marc Ambinder is TheWeek.com's editor-at-large. He is the author, with D.B. Grady, of The Command and Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry. Marc is also a contributing editor for The Atlantic and GQ. Formerly, he served as White House correspondent for National Journal, chief political consultant for CBS News, and politics editor at The Atlantic. Marc is a 2001 graduate of Harvard. He is married to Michael Park, a corporate strategy consultant, and lives in Los Angeles.
-
The week's best photos
In Pictures Playful goslings, an exploding snowman, and more
By Anahi Valenzuela, The Week US Published
-
What is rock flour and how can it help to fight climate change?
The Explainer Glacier dust to the rescue
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
Crossword: April 19, 2024
The Week's daily crossword puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
Why Puerto Rico is starving
The Explainer Thanks to poor policy design, congressional dithering, and a hostile White House, hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Puerto Ricans are about to go hungry
By Jeff Spross Published
-
China is now just another autocracy
The Explainer On the long-lasting consequences of Xi Jinping's power grab
By Noah Millman Published
-
Is America the main obstacle to peace in Korea?
The Explainer There's only one way Korea would unify — and the United States won't stand for it
By Noah Millman Published
-
Why on Earth does the Olympics still refer to hundreds of athletes as 'ladies'?
The Explainer Stop it. Just stop.
By Jeva Lange Last updated
-
Berlin's wall and ours
The Explainer What that signifier of the Cold War indicates about our unsettled historical moment
By Noah Millman Published
-
The catastrophe in Yemen
The Explainer A Saudi Arabian blockade has left millions of civilians starving, and without fuel or clean water. What is this conflict about?
By The Week Staff Published
-
China's strongman
The Explainer Xi Jinping is China's most powerful leader in decades. What are his plans for the country — and the world?
By The Week Staff Published
-
How to ride out the apocalypse in a big city
The Explainer So you live in a city and don't want to die a fiery death ...
By Eugene K. Chow Published