[Finally, the report said State Department officials in Washington
ignored requests from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, for
additional guards and better security for the Benghazi compound, which served
as a temporary U.S. consulate for eastern Libya. It also said that there had
been worrisome incidents in the weeks before the attack that should have led to
increased security, but the report did not identify any specific threats to the
compound on Sept. 11.]
By Anne Gearan
An independent investigation of the fatal attack on a U.S. diplomatic post
in Libya on Sept. 11 found that “grossly” inadequate security and reliance on
local militias left U.S. diplomats and other personnel vulnerable, the State
Department told Congress on Tuesday.
The review of the assault on the mission in Benghazi, Libya, that
killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans faulted
systemic failures of leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels
within two bureaus of the State Department, according to an unclassified
version posted on the department’s Web site Tuesday night.
The review by the Accountability Review Board said the temporary,
lightly defended compound where Stevens died lacked disciplined oversight of
its security operations. The diplomatic post’s ad hoc nature, with
inexperienced staff members working there for short periods, “resulted in
diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity,” the
report said.
Finally, the report said State Department officials in Washington
ignored requests from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, for
additional guards and better security for the Benghazi compound, which served
as a temporary U.S. consulate for eastern Libya. It also said that there had
been worrisome incidents in the weeks before the attack that should have led to
increased security, but the report did not identify any specific threats to the
compound on Sept. 11.
The report said State Department security personnel on the scene
and CIA officers at a nearby annex used as an operations base had responded in
a timely and appropriate manner, and it absolved the U.S. military of any
blame, saying there was not enough time for a military response that would have
made any difference.
Despite the broad security failures, the report did not single out
any individual officials as violating procedures and did not recommend any
disciplinary action.
The report also concluded that, contrary to initial reports by the
Obama administration and by media outlets, there was no protest outside the
outpost ahead of the attack and that the assault on the diplomatic compound and
the CIA annex was carried out by terrorists.
Stevens and another diplomat, Sean Smith, were killed inside the
compound. Two other Americans, CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty,
died in the attack on the annex. Ten people were injured in the assault.
The panel’s report “provides a clear-eyed look at serious,
systemic challenges,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote in letters
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. She said that the State Department had already begun to address the
lapses and that she accepts “every one” of the recommendations for improvement.
Officials said Clinton will ask Congress to transfer $1.3 billion
in money allocated to Iraq. The funds would be used for additional Marine
guards, diplomatic security personnel and security improvements at U.S.
missions overseas.
The report called on Congress to fully fund the request for
additional security funds. “For many years the State Department has been
engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work
with varying degrees of success,” the report said. The result, it said, has
been inefficiencies that sacrifice security for savings.
An unclassified summary of the report was posted on the State
Department’s Web site. A copy of Clinton’s letter was provided to reporters.
More-detailed classified versions were made available earlier Tuesday to congressional
leaders and the two committees in preparation for testimony by Deputy
Secretaries William J. Burns and Thomas R. Nides on Thursday.
The Benghazi attack became a major issue in the presidential
campaign, with GOP candidate Mitt Romney and numerous Republicans in Congress
criticizing the Obama administration for what they viewed as poor security at
the compound. Republicans also have been critical of initial administration
reports that said the attack grew out of protests outside the Benghazi outpost
over a U.S.-made anti-Islam video.
The report describes a somewhat loose and confusing arrangement
for security and accountability at the site. It notes that everyone involved in
Stevens’s trip to Benghazi from Tripoli for a week of meetings with local officials
was aware of the potential for increased risk associated with the anniversary
of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. As a result, Stevens was confined to the post
on that day.
The panel faulted Libyan guards who had been hired to protect the
compound, saying that they may have abandoned their posts at the front gate and
allowed the attackers to overrun the facility. The report also said that the
response of the Libyan government was “profoundly lacking on the night of the
attacks, reflecting both weak capacity and a near total absence of central
government influence in Benghazi.”
But the report also suggests that Stevens put himself in danger.
It notes that he did not perceive an outsize risk created by traveling to
Benghazi and that his deep experience in Libya and his management style meant
that he made many decisions himself.
“His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya
policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give
unusual deference to his judgments,” the report said.
The report found significant lapses in judgment and oversight by a
few unidentified State Department employees but said no mistake amounted to a
dereliction of duty. It did not recommend that anyone be fired.
First among the recommendations in the report is a general
improvement in security for front-line posts in conflict zones and other
dangerous countries. The United States cannot rely so heavily on the security
forces of host countries, the report said.
“The department should urgently review the proper balance between
acceptable risk and expected outcomes in high risk, high threat areas,” the
report said.
Abandoning such posts is not acceptable, but neither is sending
people to them without adequate support and forethought, the report said. It
recommends a cost-benefit analysis of the mission, the risk and the
responsibilities.
The five-member panel was led by former ambassador Thomas R.
Pickering and included retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two men are scheduled to present their findings in
closed-door, classified meetings on Wednesday with the Senate and House foreign
affairs panels.
