The terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was immediately associated with the Benghazi tragedy and reliable reports of their involvement were confirmed within days; this is often cited in accusations that the administration was remiss in their early appraisals presented to the media. How is this not compelling evidence of a terrorist plot? And how could this same militia gravitate back to Benghazi and assume their previous security role after such a blatant act?
The answer may provide some insight into the conditions in Benghazi at the time of the attack and help further our understanding of what actually happened that resulted in the death of our US ambassador and the apparent abandonment of CIA operations in Benghazi. There seems no question that Ansar al-Sharia militiamen, and their motor pool, were involved:
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi…
Paul Schemm and Maggie Michael – Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack AP 27 Oct 13
So we have ample evidence of their involvement, and reports they took credit for the attack on 12 September 2012, yet their leadership lived freely in Benghazi and even gave interviews with Western media in the aftermath. What gives?
While we assume that Ansar al-Sharia is an international terrorist group, with members, leaders and coherent objectives it isn’t that simple:
Ansar al Sharia is more a label than an organization, one that’s been adopted by conservative Salafist groups across the Arab world. The name means, simply, “Partisans of Islamic Law.”
Tim Lister and Paul Cruickshank – What is Ansar al Sharia, and was it behind the consulate attack in Benghazi? CNN 16 Nov 12
The terrorist connection is understandable, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) established their group Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen in April 2011. However the suspected attackers’ group Katibat Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi (ASB) has no confirmed al-Qaeda affiliation. Yet it clearly participated in the attack on the Special Mission compound of the State Department in Benghazi:
The group itself has offered conflicting messages about its role in the Benghazi assault. On Sept. 12, a spokesman for the group said members of the organization participated in the attack, but also said it wasn’t sanctioned by the group’s leadership. In an interview from Sept. 18 with the BBC, Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, said his group was not involved in the attack. Then in mid-October, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of an Islamist brigade affiliated at times with Ansar al-Sharia, said he was at the scene of the attack, though he denied participating in it.
Eli Lake – Ansar al-Sharia’s Role in Benghazi Attacks Still a Mystery Daily Beast 5 Nov 2012
One can understand, almost, both the outrage of the Republicans and the ambivalence of the administration in their characterisation of the attacks. Reading the eyewitness accounts of the attack one is struck by inconsistencies; hectoring of the attackers at the SMC, Libyan rent-a-guards roughed up but surviving, the Annex rescue team reaching “a chaotic intersection” of armed militia a few blocks from the SMC where, in spite of rallying three volunteers, it is unclear if the rest are friendly, enemy or indifferent. As recently as last week there were reports of a more sinister presence:
One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that “three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack.
Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.
Paul Cruickshank, Tim Lister, Nic Robertson and Fran Townsend – Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack CNN 3 May 13
It is entirely consistent with the evidence to consider that a small, dedicated group of conspirators could have agitated the existing Islamist militias to action. Which brings us back to the influence of the controversy surrounding the Innocence of Muslims and the call to vengeance of Ayman al-Zawahiri on the anniversary of 9/11; these plausibly remain part of the circumstances that led to the torching of the Special Mission and the tragic deaths of four Americans.
Cross-posted at The Motley Moose
Accept that they showed up, but when? The reports of men at the front gate by the compound local guards and the ROC officer viewing via video cameras makes no mention of trucks. It was a crowded scene by the time the CIA team arrived, but again reported men and not trucks immediately outside the compound.
Also consider that “terrorists” during the commission of terrorists acts don’t blatantly identify themselves.
The State Dept wasn’t convinced by the evidence reports. The CIA immediately wanted them fingered. Yet, the CIA team wasn’t even there for at least thirty minutes. Plus the CIA looks better if a single organized Islamist terror group was behind all the attacks that night and the next morning. I find it fascinating that with over half an hour to act after gaining entry to the SMC, they didn’t manage to kill or wound any of the SMC occupants with their weapons. Whereas, outside the Annex, they killed two and seriously wounded one within fifteen minutes.
The premise of your diary, which I think is probably better than this one at saying the same thing; I am just leaving it up to the reader a bit more to think that the evidence doesn’t fit anybody’s simple narrative.
Yet there likely were instigators, recent reports of the Yemeni participants fits this reading. And I find it interesting that more than one eyewitness account refers to men with ‘Afghan’ style clothing; another odd bit of evidence. It seems plausible that outsiders and militant local leaders took advantage of the situation to stage an attack with willing militiamen, and whomever else, they could rally on the occasion.
This is all consistent with protest over the video and the agitation of Ayman al-Zawahiri being a factor. It seems to me that the death of the ambassador was probably unintended, under the circumstances; though perhaps not unwelcome to the planners. Although it seems less a coincidence that he was there, so recently after such a long absence.
Car bomb attack photos from BBC. “… a string of attacks in recent days. At least three police stations were bombed in the second week of May, although no one was reported hurt.” Interesting.
FBI released a photo of a suspect wearing the white pants and long shirt. Traditional Pakistani clothing. He would have stood out in a mob there; so perhaps it’s this one man that those present recall. Not too bright to dress like that for an attack in Libya. And if the locals can’t discriminate between Afghan and Pakistan dress, how good are they at picking out men from Yemen.
Thought I read somewhere that this wasn’t Stevens first trip to Benghazi after his appointment to the ambassadorship — but they may not be confirmed.
My bias is not to take much eyewitness reports as accurate — too much psych education. After setting that aside and looking at the few photos, solid facts/evidence, and a timeline that’s close enough, it looks more like what happened in Cairo that day than a planned and organized assault. Different from what occurred the next morning in front of the Annex.
Have to keep in mind that public reports of an attack at the SMC were available almost in real time and hours before the deadly attack on the Annex.
Mafia guys have a saying:
As above, so below.
Who has “the money” here?
#1-The U.S. and the other NATO/blood-for-oil interests.
and
#2-Saudi Arabia and the rest of the so-called “Islamic” oil-funded powers.
Both of which are simultaneously at war and/or allies in the business of making money.
Others in the game on one side or another?
Russia and China, mostly. No more than 15% or 20% at best, so far. Probably less. (It’s been long game, don’tcha know. Since the early 1900s. Russia and China have their own resources and their own problems as well. So it goes.)
Who owns whom? Who controls whom? It changes from day to day. The one constant?
I repeat:
Bottom line, folks.
Bottom line.
Bet on it.
Damon Runyon knew.
Bet on it.
If you dare.
Bet on it.
The hustle is always on.
Bet on that as well.
Bet on it.
Believe noting that you are told.
Except this:
Bet on it.
If you dare.
Later…
AG