I’m not one to fall for or put out conspiracy theories, but I have to wonder whether the attacks at the Consulate and annex in Benghazi weren’t cover for the alleged disappearance of several hundred anti-aircraft missiles more affectionately known as MANPADS (man portable air defense systems).
We know that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi at the request of the Secretary of State to oversee a special project. That project, per various media sources, turned out to be the buyback of weapons used during the civil war in Libya. The idea behind the program was to keep those weapons out of the hands of the more radical elements involved in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, lest they migrate to other parts of Africa, the Middle East, or even further afield.
The Administration has been slow in bringing the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. After having identified one of the planners, and knowing that this individual had been conducting interviews with the international press, I find it difficult to believe that we cannot gain access to this terrorist or his cohorts. The administration is blaming the Libyan government for being obstructionists and keeping us from putting either law enforcement or military personnel on the ground in Benghazi. Why?
The 2012 election cycle has come and gone. The President is still in office, so there’s no longer any reason to maintain the façade of being a tough guy on foreign policy. Is he protecting Hillary Clinton and her possible bid for the presidency in 2016? Had she come clean about what really happened that night, her chances of gaining her party’s nomination would have not taken much of a hit since almost four years would have passed between Benghazi and the 2016 election season. I keep coming to the conclusion that something bigger is going on here, something so big that its coming to light would add even more fuel to the fire and embroil the administration in an even larger scandal.
I alluded earlier to the attacks being cover for the theft of anti-aircraft weapons. Here’s why I think this a plausible scenario:
- We know that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to oversee the progress of a weapons buyback program. It was deemed important enough for him to be in a part of the country where the Brits and a slew of NGOs had pulled out due to how dangerous things had become.
- Requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department chain of command. Why? Possibly because they didn’t want to draw any unwarranted scrutiny from outside sources, especially if this program was supposed to be one that flew under the radar. There are reports that a number of locally hired security personnel either walked off the job the day of the attacks or just failed to show up for work. I find that extremely interesting, even more so when you couple that with reports of these facilities being under surveillance by unknown individuals in the days leading up to the attacks.
- The witnesses who were on the ground in Libya and personnel manning crisis rooms and command posts at Foggy Bottom and Langley had been conspicuously absent in the halls of Congress when it came to testifying about what happened that night. The Administration has been dragging its feet in allowing these folks to go before House and Senate committees and tell them what they knew and when they knew it. Why?
The loss of four American lives in Benghazi, including the first U.S. Ambassador since the 1980s, opened another wound in the American psyche that has yet to be closed. Had this just been another attack by a group of jihadis looking for payback on a day they felt held some sort of symbolism for this nation, I might be able to understand it. But this was more. I have a sneaking suspicion that they knew those weapons were there and they had a plan in place to acquire them. I’m reminded of the Bruce Willis “Die Hard” movies where the villains contrived some sort of crises where the attention of the authorities and public were diverted elsewhere while they carried out attacks on their true objectives. Rather than boil this down to life imitating art and an implausible scenario, it would be prudent to keep in mind that diversionary tactics have been an essential part of military campaigns since men first learned how to make spears.
Fast and Furious dealt with a gun walking scheme involving Mexican drug cartels that was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Mexican nationals and a U.S. Border Patrol agent. The Administration, specifically the DEA and the Attorney General have been excoriated by Congress over this failed attempt to track where these guns were supposedly going in the wider War on Drugs. Imagine what would happen if these anti-aircraft weapons wound up in the hands of jihadis or other unsavory groups who used them to damage or bring down military, law enforcement, or commercial aircraft in Africa, the Middle East, or even Europe. Not a pretty picture, is it? So one can imagine the Administration’s reluctance to be forthright and candid about what really happened in Benghazi, especially if those weapons can be traced back to that State Department buyback program.
Just a little food for thought.
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -Sherlock Holmes-